<?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 (8) TMI 94 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756390</link>
    <description>Commission earned by an agency bank for carrying out government treasury and other RBI-linked transactions was treated as exempt from service tax because the bank acted as an appointed agent of the Reserve Bank of India for government business. The analysis relied on Notification No. 22/2006-ST and the statutory scheme under Section 45 of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, which recognises agency banks for transacting RBI business. Applying prior Tribunal reasoning, the activity was regarded as discharge of sovereign or statutory functions, and the principal&#039;s exemption was held to extend to the agent performing the same exempt function. The service tax demand, along with interest and penalty, was therefore not sustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 30 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 02 Aug 2024 08:11:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=762600" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (8) TMI 94 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756390</link>
      <description>Commission earned by an agency bank for carrying out government treasury and other RBI-linked transactions was treated as exempt from service tax because the bank acted as an appointed agent of the Reserve Bank of India for government business. The analysis relied on Notification No. 22/2006-ST and the statutory scheme under Section 45 of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, which recognises agency banks for transacting RBI business. Applying prior Tribunal reasoning, the activity was regarded as discharge of sovereign or statutory functions, and the principal&#039;s exemption was held to extend to the agent performing the same exempt function. The service tax demand, along with interest and penalty, was therefore not sustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756390</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>