https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464328 CESTAT held that the revenue's appeal against a refund grant lacked merit and was dismissed. The tribunal found the exemption under N/N 25/2012-ST (withdrawn 01.04.2015 and later restored) could not be negated by Notification No.09/2016-ST, which is not retrospective. The service recipient qualified as a "governmental authority," the multi-level parking was not shown to be used for commercial purposes, and the revenue failed to produce documentary evidence or proof of deficient stamping. The appellate acceptance on monetary grounds did not preclude the decision's precedential value. en-us Tue, 26 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 19 Oct 2025 14:38:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464328 CESTAT held that the revenue's appeal against a refund grant lacked merit and was dismissed. The tribunal found the exemption under N/N 25/2012-ST (withdrawn 01.04.2015 and later restored) could not be negated by Notification No.09/2016-ST, which is not retrospective. The service recipient qualified as a "governmental authority," the multi-level parking was not shown to be used for commercial purposes, and the revenue failed to produce documentary evidence or proof of deficient stamping. The appellate acceptance on monetary grounds did not preclude the decision's precedential value. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 26 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464328