<?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 (5) TMI 72 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769800</link>
    <description>CESTAT NEW DELHI held that Preferential Location Charges (PLC) collected by residential complex developers are inextricably linked to construction services and form part of the consideration for residential complex construction, not a separate taxable service. The tribunal ruled PLC qualifies for 75% abatement under Notification 26/2012-ST as it constitutes part of the gross value for construction services. The extended limitation period was wrongly invoked as no suppression or fraud was established, with the appellant maintaining proper records and filing returns based on bonafide interpretation. The demand was set aside entirely.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 30 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 02 May 2025 08:54:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=818887" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (5) TMI 72 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769800</link>
      <description>CESTAT NEW DELHI held that Preferential Location Charges (PLC) collected by residential complex developers are inextricably linked to construction services and form part of the consideration for residential complex construction, not a separate taxable service. The tribunal ruled PLC qualifies for 75% abatement under Notification 26/2012-ST as it constitutes part of the gross value for construction services. The extended limitation period was wrongly invoked as no suppression or fraud was established, with the appellant maintaining proper records and filing returns based on bonafide interpretation. The demand was set aside entirely.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 30 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769800</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>