https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774937 CESTAT Chennai held that the appellant, a service provider offering multiple services for consideration, was liable to pay service tax on Renting of Immovable Property Service (RIPS). The tribunal rejected the appellant's claim of rendering sovereign functions, noting that the appellant selectively registered and paid service tax for some services while avoiding RIPS, demonstrating commercial awareness. The arrangement was deemed a pure commercial agreement despite labeling rental payments as "user charges" and "license fees." The tribunal emphasized that agreements between independent entities cannot circumvent tax liability through deliberate devices. Regarding the extended limitation period, the tribunal found it justified since the appellant was aware of service tax obligations, having registered for other services. The appeal was dismissed with no merit found in the appellant's case. en-us Tue, 15 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 17 Jul 2025 08:19:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774937 CESTAT Chennai held that the appellant, a service provider offering multiple services for consideration, was liable to pay service tax on Renting of Immovable Property Service (RIPS). The tribunal rejected the appellant's claim of rendering sovereign functions, noting that the appellant selectively registered and paid service tax for some services while avoiding RIPS, demonstrating commercial awareness. The arrangement was deemed a pure commercial agreement despite labeling rental payments as "user charges" and "license fees." The tribunal emphasized that agreements between independent entities cannot circumvent tax liability through deliberate devices. Regarding the extended limitation period, the tribunal found it justified since the appellant was aware of service tax obligations, having registered for other services. The appeal was dismissed with no merit found in the appellant's case. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 15 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774937