<?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 (12) TMI 607 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763027</link>
    <description>CESTAT Ahmedabad held that leasing of scaffolding items constituted a deemed sale under Article 366(29A)(d) of the Constitution, making it liable to VAT rather than service tax. The tribunal found that lessees had complete right to use, possession, and effective control over the scaffolding materials, including responsibility for insurance and damage costs. The revenue authorities&#039; contention that absence of ownership transfer negated deemed sale status was rejected as legally misconceived, since deemed sales specifically involve transfer of usage rights without ownership change. The appeal was allowed and the original order set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 10 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 Dec 2024 08:55:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=782231" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (12) TMI 607 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763027</link>
      <description>CESTAT Ahmedabad held that leasing of scaffolding items constituted a deemed sale under Article 366(29A)(d) of the Constitution, making it liable to VAT rather than service tax. The tribunal found that lessees had complete right to use, possession, and effective control over the scaffolding materials, including responsibility for insurance and damage costs. The revenue authorities&#039; contention that absence of ownership transfer negated deemed sale status was rejected as legally misconceived, since deemed sales specifically involve transfer of usage rights without ownership change. The appeal was allowed and the original order set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763027</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>