<?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 1304 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763724</link>
    <description>Post-01.07.2012, service tax was held payable on private Haj and Umrah tour operator services supplied to Indian recipients in the taxable territory under the negative list regime. The Mega Exemption Notification was found inapplicable because its religious pilgrimage benefit was limited to specified statutory bodies such as the Haj Committee, not commercial private operators arranging package tours. The distinction between statutory Haj Committees and private tour operators was treated as founded on an intelligible differentia with a rational nexus to the exemption&#039;s object, so the discrimination challenge failed. The levy was therefore upheld and the exemption claim rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 19 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Dec 2024 09:00:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=784683" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (12) TMI 1304 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763724</link>
      <description>Post-01.07.2012, service tax was held payable on private Haj and Umrah tour operator services supplied to Indian recipients in the taxable territory under the negative list regime. The Mega Exemption Notification was found inapplicable because its religious pilgrimage benefit was limited to specified statutory bodies such as the Haj Committee, not commercial private operators arranging package tours. The distinction between statutory Haj Committees and private tour operators was treated as founded on an intelligible differentia with a rational nexus to the exemption&#039;s object, so the discrimination challenge failed. The levy was therefore upheld and the exemption claim rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763724</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>