https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450622 Refund of service tax was denied where the agreement was treated as a pure lease and not a sale-linked construction transaction eligible for abatement under Notification No. 26/2012-ST. The service recipient could not reclassify the provider's activity, as the provider had treated it as renting of immovable property and filed returns on that basis. The claim also failed because the appellants did not prove the statutory conditions relied on by the lower authorities, including non-availment of Cenvat credit, deposit of the tax collected, and inclusion of land value in the lease consideration. The rejection of refund was upheld. en-us Tue, 27 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 09 Mar 2024 07:36:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450622 Refund of service tax was denied where the agreement was treated as a pure lease and not a sale-linked construction transaction eligible for abatement under Notification No. 26/2012-ST. The service recipient could not reclassify the provider's activity, as the provider had treated it as renting of immovable property and filed returns on that basis. The claim also failed because the appellants did not prove the statutory conditions relied on by the lower authorities, including non-availment of Cenvat credit, deposit of the tax collected, and inclusion of land value in the lease consideration. The rejection of refund was upheld. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 27 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450622