<?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 1258 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765194</link>
    <description>Charges collected by a statutory development authority for mandatory public or sovereign functions performed under governing law were treated as non-taxable, while receipts from independent commercial activities such as renting, advertisements and supply of tangible goods remained liable to service tax. The demand was also found unsustainable where the show cause notice and adjudication order did not provide proper service-wise or transaction-wise quantification, and relied on mixed balance-sheet and bank figures without a reliable evidentiary basis. The extended limitation period was rejected because suppression with intent to evade tax was not established on the facts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 28 Jan 2025 08:24:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=792434" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (1) TMI 1258 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765194</link>
      <description>Charges collected by a statutory development authority for mandatory public or sovereign functions performed under governing law were treated as non-taxable, while receipts from independent commercial activities such as renting, advertisements and supply of tangible goods remained liable to service tax. The demand was also found unsustainable where the show cause notice and adjudication order did not provide proper service-wise or transaction-wise quantification, and relied on mixed balance-sheet and bank figures without a reliable evidentiary basis. The extended limitation period was rejected because suppression with intent to evade tax was not established on the facts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765194</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>