https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448122 The CESTAT Ahmedabad allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order. The Tribunal held that the appellant correctly discharged service tax on hall hire charges while paying VAT on the food component. Following precedent from CESTAT New Delhi, the Tribunal ruled that separate billing for banquet hall charges and food charges is permissible under Notification No. 12/2003-ST. The requirement for separate contracts was deemed legally inconsequential when invoices clearly indicated both parties agreed to segregate the components. Extended period of limitation could not be invoked as the matter involved interpretation of law. en-us Tue, 09 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 11 Jan 2024 11:45:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448122 The CESTAT Ahmedabad allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order. The Tribunal held that the appellant correctly discharged service tax on hall hire charges while paying VAT on the food component. Following precedent from CESTAT New Delhi, the Tribunal ruled that separate billing for banquet hall charges and food charges is permissible under Notification No. 12/2003-ST. The requirement for separate contracts was deemed legally inconsequential when invoices clearly indicated both parties agreed to segregate the components. Extended period of limitation could not be invoked as the matter involved interpretation of law. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 09 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448122