<?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 (7) TMI 1142 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775074</link>
    <description>CESTAT Ahmedabad held that cash van rental services constitute &quot;supply of tangible goods service&quot; under service tax, not deemed sale. The appellant provided specially designed cash vans to banks with obligations including alternate vehicle provision during breakdowns, driver arrangements, and maintenance responsibilities. The tribunal distinguished this from transfer of right to use goods, finding it constituted permissive use only. Citing K P Mozika v. ONGC, where similar contractor obligations for crane replacement and maintenance were analyzed, the court determined the arrangement fell under service tax liability. Extended limitation period was upheld as appellant failed to disclose services, obtain registration, or file ST-3 returns, preventing department knowledge of activities. No evidence of VAT payment treating transactions as deemed sale was produced. Appeal was partly allowed through remand for further proceedings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 Jul 2025 14:26:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=837236" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (7) TMI 1142 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775074</link>
      <description>CESTAT Ahmedabad held that cash van rental services constitute &quot;supply of tangible goods service&quot; under service tax, not deemed sale. The appellant provided specially designed cash vans to banks with obligations including alternate vehicle provision during breakdowns, driver arrangements, and maintenance responsibilities. The tribunal distinguished this from transfer of right to use goods, finding it constituted permissive use only. Citing K P Mozika v. ONGC, where similar contractor obligations for crane replacement and maintenance were analyzed, the court determined the arrangement fell under service tax liability. Extended limitation period was upheld as appellant failed to disclose services, obtain registration, or file ST-3 returns, preventing department knowledge of activities. No evidence of VAT payment treating transactions as deemed sale was produced. Appeal was partly allowed through remand for further proceedings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775074</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>