<?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>CESTAT ruled race track not public road, no tax exemption. Misrepresentation led to extended limitation. Appeal dismissed.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=78319</link>
    <description>The case involved a dispute u/s service tax levy on construction services provided for a car race track. The Appellate Tribunal held that the track did not qualify as a road for public use as required by N/N. 17/2005. The definition of &quot;public place&quot; was crucial, emphasizing the right of public access. The Tribunal concluded that the race track, while a road, did not grant public access as a matter of right, thus not meeting the criteria for exemption. The Tribunal upheld the extended period of limitation due to the appellant&#039;s misrepresentation in claiming the exemption. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the department&#039;s decision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 10 Jun 2024 07:43:06 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 10 Jun 2024 07:43:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=755832" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>CESTAT ruled race track not public road, no tax exemption. Misrepresentation led to extended limitation. Appeal dismissed.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=78319</link>
      <description>The case involved a dispute u/s service tax levy on construction services provided for a car race track. The Appellate Tribunal held that the track did not qualify as a road for public use as required by N/N. 17/2005. The definition of &quot;public place&quot; was crucial, emphasizing the right of public access. The Tribunal concluded that the race track, while a road, did not grant public access as a matter of right, thus not meeting the criteria for exemption. The Tribunal upheld the extended period of limitation due to the appellant&#039;s misrepresentation in claiming the exemption. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the department&#039;s decision.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Jun 2024 07:43:06 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=78319</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>