<?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 (6) TMI 1357 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773244</link>
    <description>Transfer fees and miscellaneous charges collected from plot-holders, including floating charges, administration charges and the share of the infrastructure up-gradation fund, were treated as statutory levies under the industrial estate framework rather than consideration for any taxable service. The share of the infrastructure up-gradation fund, collected on behalf of industrial associations and reimbursed to them, was also found not to amount to service consideration. The issue was treated as already covered by the corporation&#039;s earlier case and as no longer res integra, so the charges were held not liable to service tax.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 16 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Jun 2025 08:34:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=830411" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (6) TMI 1357 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773244</link>
      <description>Transfer fees and miscellaneous charges collected from plot-holders, including floating charges, administration charges and the share of the infrastructure up-gradation fund, were treated as statutory levies under the industrial estate framework rather than consideration for any taxable service. The share of the infrastructure up-gradation fund, collected on behalf of industrial associations and reimbursed to them, was also found not to amount to service consideration. The issue was treated as already covered by the corporation&#039;s earlier case and as no longer res integra, so the charges were held not liable to service tax.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 16 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773244</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>