<?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>Service tax demand partly set aside for amounts before 01.07.2012; post-July2012 sales of EWS/LIG flats taxable; Notification No.25/2012 rejected</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92862</link>
    <description>CESTAT held that the demand for service tax on amounts received up to 30.06.2012 from the State-affiliated urban improvement trust cannot be sustained because the trust did not fall within the statutory definition of &quot;person&quot; operative before 01.07.2012; accordingly that portion of the demand was set aside. For the period July 2012-March 2015 the Tribunal upheld the demand, finding the trust&#039;s sale of EWS/LIG flats to be a commercial supply not covered by the notified exemption and that the appellant was not entitled to reliance on Notification No.25/2012; however, taxable events were to be quantified by dates of payment under the continuous-supply principle. Extended-period invocation was rejected and penalties were set aside; the impugned order was modified and the appeal allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 Sep 2025 08:26:58 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 26 Sep 2025 08:27:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=854714" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Service tax demand partly set aside for amounts before 01.07.2012; post-July2012 sales of EWS/LIG flats taxable; Notification No.25/2012 rejected</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92862</link>
      <description>CESTAT held that the demand for service tax on amounts received up to 30.06.2012 from the State-affiliated urban improvement trust cannot be sustained because the trust did not fall within the statutory definition of &quot;person&quot; operative before 01.07.2012; accordingly that portion of the demand was set aside. For the period July 2012-March 2015 the Tribunal upheld the demand, finding the trust&#039;s sale of EWS/LIG flats to be a commercial supply not covered by the notified exemption and that the appellant was not entitled to reliance on Notification No.25/2012; however, taxable events were to be quantified by dates of payment under the continuous-supply principle. Extended-period invocation was rejected and penalties were set aside; the impugned order was modified and the appeal allowed.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Sep 2025 08:26:58 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92862</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>