<?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>2024 (4) TMI 330 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751149</link>
    <description>CESTAT New Delhi held that pipeline laying and maintenance services for Delhi Jal Board (DJB), a statutory body providing water supply and sewage services, do not constitute commercial activities and are not subject to service tax under management, maintenance or repair services. However, renting property for hostel operations was deemed commercial activity liable to service tax. Supply of tangible goods service tax was upheld where appellant received hiring charges but failed to disclose contract details. Extended limitation period and penalties were justified due to appellant&#039;s non-disclosure of material facts. Appeal partially allowed with demand of Rs. 1,28,72,584 set aside but other demands upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 08 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 08 Apr 2024 17:41:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=749498" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (4) TMI 330 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751149</link>
      <description>CESTAT New Delhi held that pipeline laying and maintenance services for Delhi Jal Board (DJB), a statutory body providing water supply and sewage services, do not constitute commercial activities and are not subject to service tax under management, maintenance or repair services. However, renting property for hostel operations was deemed commercial activity liable to service tax. Supply of tangible goods service tax was upheld where appellant received hiring charges but failed to disclose contract details. Extended limitation period and penalties were justified due to appellant&#039;s non-disclosure of material facts. Appeal partially allowed with demand of Rs. 1,28,72,584 set aside but other demands upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 08 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751149</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>