<?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>Licence agreements held revenue-sharing business arrangements, not taxable service; service tax demand annulled and order set aside</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93375</link>
    <description>The Appellant&#039;s appeals are allowed and the impugned order is set aside. CESTAT holds that the licence agreements between the State-owned entity&#039;s catering arm and third-party licensees constituted contracts to set up and operate food plazas-commercial operational arrangements governed by substance-over-form-rather than &quot;renting of immovable property&quot; services under the applicable levy provisions. The Tribunal finds the transactions to be revenue-sharing business arrangements for provision of public utility catering, not taxable service supplies; the amounts charged do not constitute the requisite quid pro quo for a taxable service. Consequently, the service tax demand (and related limitation plea) is unsustainable and is annulled.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Oct 2025 08:30:14 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 Oct 2025 08:30:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=858817" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Licence agreements held revenue-sharing business arrangements, not taxable service; service tax demand annulled and order set aside</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93375</link>
      <description>The Appellant&#039;s appeals are allowed and the impugned order is set aside. CESTAT holds that the licence agreements between the State-owned entity&#039;s catering arm and third-party licensees constituted contracts to set up and operate food plazas-commercial operational arrangements governed by substance-over-form-rather than &quot;renting of immovable property&quot; services under the applicable levy provisions. The Tribunal finds the transactions to be revenue-sharing business arrangements for provision of public utility catering, not taxable service supplies; the amounts charged do not constitute the requisite quid pro quo for a taxable service. Consequently, the service tax demand (and related limitation plea) is unsustainable and is annulled.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Oct 2025 08:30:14 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93375</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>