<?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>2025 (1) TMI 346 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764284</link>
    <description>CESTAT Chandigarh allowed the appeal in a service tax case involving manpower recruitment and site formation services. The appellant provided services to NTPC, a public sector undertaking under government control, which qualified as a governmental authority making the services exempt from service tax. The court relied on Supreme Court precedent defining governmental authority as entities established by government with 90% or more participation. Extended limitation period was deemed inappropriate as appellant had bona fide belief that services to mega development projects were exempt, with no intention to evade tax. The appellant neither registered nor recovered service tax from contractors due to this genuine belief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Jan 2025 14:19:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=787205" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (1) TMI 346 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764284</link>
      <description>CESTAT Chandigarh allowed the appeal in a service tax case involving manpower recruitment and site formation services. The appellant provided services to NTPC, a public sector undertaking under government control, which qualified as a governmental authority making the services exempt from service tax. The court relied on Supreme Court precedent defining governmental authority as entities established by government with 90% or more participation. Extended limitation period was deemed inappropriate as appellant had bona fide belief that services to mega development projects were exempt, with no intention to evade tax. The appellant neither registered nor recovered service tax from contractors due to this genuine belief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764284</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>