<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2022 (12) TMI 1440 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309680</link>
    <description>Lease of power generating and heat recovery equipment was treated as a transfer of the right to use goods because the lessee had exclusive possession and effective control during the lease term, while the owner could not interfere or grant the same right to others. The arrangement also required the lessee to obtain permissions, arrange fuel and other facilities, and bear operational responsibilities, supporting deemed sale treatment under Article 366(29A)(d) and the VAT framework. As a transaction involving transfer of the right to use goods, it did not fall within the service tax category of supply of tangible goods without transfer of possession and effective control, and the demand was unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 Dec 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 15 Sep 2023 21:27:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=726229" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (12) TMI 1440 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309680</link>
      <description>Lease of power generating and heat recovery equipment was treated as a transfer of the right to use goods because the lessee had exclusive possession and effective control during the lease term, while the owner could not interfere or grant the same right to others. The arrangement also required the lessee to obtain permissions, arrange fuel and other facilities, and bear operational responsibilities, supporting deemed sale treatment under Article 366(29A)(d) and the VAT framework. As a transaction involving transfer of the right to use goods, it did not fall within the service tax category of supply of tangible goods without transfer of possession and effective control, and the demand was unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Dec 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309680</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>