https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766409 Madras HC noted that hiring of cinematographic equipment involved transfer of possession, effective control and the legal right to use the goods to the hirer, who bore maintenance, loss and insurance responsibilities and could not be deprived of use during the hire period. Applying Article 366(29A)(d), the Court treated the arrangement as a deemed sale outside the scope of service under Section 65B(44), so the period 1 July 2012 to 31 December 2015 was not liable to service tax. For August 2010 to June 2012, the transaction also failed to meet the charging description of supply of tangible goods without transfer of possession and effective control under Section 65(105)(zzzzj), so the demands and penalties could not stand. en-us Wed, 19 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 25 Feb 2025 08:24:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766409 Madras HC noted that hiring of cinematographic equipment involved transfer of possession, effective control and the legal right to use the goods to the hirer, who bore maintenance, loss and insurance responsibilities and could not be deprived of use during the hire period. Applying Article 366(29A)(d), the Court treated the arrangement as a deemed sale outside the scope of service under Section 65B(44), so the period 1 July 2012 to 31 December 2015 was not liable to service tax. For August 2010 to June 2012, the transaction also failed to meet the charging description of supply of tangible goods without transfer of possession and effective control under Section 65(105)(zzzzj), so the demands and penalties could not stand. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 19 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766409