<?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>2026 (2) TMI 236 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=786041</link>
    <description>Classification turned on the contractual counterparty and purpose: the concessionaire&#039;s activities under a concession agreement and project site lease deed were held not to constitute taxable business support services to bus operators because the contract was with the public authority, the concessionaire collected governmentfixed addafees and the terminal served as a public utility; consequence: service tax demand under business support services set aside. Separately, the revenue&#039;s demand was timebarred because the assessee furnished all relevant information on 06.04.2009 and the SCN issued on 11.04.2012 exceeded the oneyear limitation without evidence of suppression or fraud; consequence: demand barred by limitation and appeals allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 03 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 Feb 2026 15:08:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=884359" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (2) TMI 236 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=786041</link>
      <description>Classification turned on the contractual counterparty and purpose: the concessionaire&#039;s activities under a concession agreement and project site lease deed were held not to constitute taxable business support services to bus operators because the contract was with the public authority, the concessionaire collected governmentfixed addafees and the terminal served as a public utility; consequence: service tax demand under business support services set aside. Separately, the revenue&#039;s demand was timebarred because the assessee furnished all relevant information on 06.04.2009 and the SCN issued on 11.04.2012 exceeded the oneyear limitation without evidence of suppression or fraud; consequence: demand barred by limitation and appeals allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=786041</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>