<?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 (12) TMI 955 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447271</link>
    <description>The Telangana HC dismissed a writ petition filed by the Waqf Board challenging service tax levy on rental income and compensation amounts. The Board claimed it had no commercial properties and disputed the tax authority&#039;s jurisdiction. The HC held that respondent No. 3 had proper jurisdiction over the petitioner and properties within Telangana after state bifurcation on 02.06.2014. The court rejected the time-barred argument, noting each assessment period creates separate cause of action. As a statutory body under Wakf Act 1955, the petitioner was responsible for wakf finances and liable for defaults. Without tenable grounds for judicial review, the petition was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 16 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 22 Dec 2023 09:40:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=736234" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (12) TMI 955 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447271</link>
      <description>The Telangana HC dismissed a writ petition filed by the Waqf Board challenging service tax levy on rental income and compensation amounts. The Board claimed it had no commercial properties and disputed the tax authority&#039;s jurisdiction. The HC held that respondent No. 3 had proper jurisdiction over the petitioner and properties within Telangana after state bifurcation on 02.06.2014. The court rejected the time-barred argument, noting each assessment period creates separate cause of action. As a statutory body under Wakf Act 1955, the petitioner was responsible for wakf finances and liable for defaults. Without tenable grounds for judicial review, the petition was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 16 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447271</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>