<?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 1330 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757626</link>
    <description>Renting, leasing or allotment of shops, land, platforms or space by a statutory market committee was treated as taxable service for the pre-01.07.2012 period because the activity was discretionary and not a mandatory sovereign function, and the charges collected did not have the character of a compulsory statutory fee paid into the Government treasury. A prior exemption circular did not cover the activity, and the later inclusion of similar services in the negative list supported the view that no earlier exemption applied. A pre-GST notice and the adjudication that followed GST were held to remain valid under the repeal-and-savings provision, so the post-GST order was not without jurisdiction. The limitation objection also failed, as the demand had already been confined to the normal period.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Aug 2024 16:12:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=765812" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (8) TMI 1330 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757626</link>
      <description>Renting, leasing or allotment of shops, land, platforms or space by a statutory market committee was treated as taxable service for the pre-01.07.2012 period because the activity was discretionary and not a mandatory sovereign function, and the charges collected did not have the character of a compulsory statutory fee paid into the Government treasury. A prior exemption circular did not cover the activity, and the later inclusion of similar services in the negative list supported the view that no earlier exemption applied. A pre-GST notice and the adjudication that followed GST were held to remain valid under the repeal-and-savings provision, so the post-GST order was not without jurisdiction. The limitation objection also failed, as the demand had already been confined to the normal period.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757626</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>