<?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>2023 (11) TMI 681 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445790</link>
    <description>Rent, lease or allotment of shop, land, platform or space by market committees was treated as a discretionary activity under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961, not a compulsory statutory function. On that basis, the claimed service tax exemption was unavailable because the provision was enabling rather than mandatory. The fact that the receipts were credited to the market committee fund under Rule 45 of the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Markets Rules, 1963 did not alter the character of the activity for exemption purposes. The later introduction of the negative list from 1 July 2012 was also held not to support an earlier exemption under the circular relied upon.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 Nov 2023 08:27:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=732347" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (11) TMI 681 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445790</link>
      <description>Rent, lease or allotment of shop, land, platform or space by market committees was treated as a discretionary activity under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961, not a compulsory statutory function. On that basis, the claimed service tax exemption was unavailable because the provision was enabling rather than mandatory. The fact that the receipts were credited to the market committee fund under Rule 45 of the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Markets Rules, 1963 did not alter the character of the activity for exemption purposes. The later introduction of the negative list from 1 July 2012 was also held not to support an earlier exemption under the circular relied upon.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445790</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>