https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=87220 CESTAT analyzed the agreement between the parties and determined that the transaction did not constitute a franchise service under Section 65(47) of the Finance Act, 1994. The tribunal found the relationship was purely commercial, involving a buyer-seller interaction without representational rights. The agreement was non-exclusive, with Microsoft providing software and hardware on a non-exclusive basis. Critically, the transaction did not meet franchise service criteria, and therefore the respondent was not liable for service tax under the reverse charge mechanism. The Revenue's appeal was consequently dismissed, affirming the original order's validity. en-us Tue, 08 Apr 2025 08:29:01 +0530 Tue, 08 Apr 2025 08:29:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=87220 CESTAT analyzed the agreement between the parties and determined that the transaction did not constitute a franchise service under Section 65(47) of the Finance Act, 1994. The tribunal found the relationship was purely commercial, involving a buyer-seller interaction without representational rights. The agreement was non-exclusive, with Microsoft providing software and hardware on a non-exclusive basis. Critically, the transaction did not meet franchise service criteria, and therefore the respondent was not liable for service tax under the reverse charge mechanism. The Revenue's appeal was consequently dismissed, affirming the original order's validity. Highlights Service Tax Tue, 08 Apr 2025 08:29:01 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=87220