<?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 (3) TMI 29 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787274</link>
    <description>The article addresses exemption under Notification No. 27/2012-ST and the appellate tribunal&#039;s remand limited to documentary verification of certificates required for exemption; substantive eligibility (services to diplomatic missions) was not disputed. The tribunal directed conditional grant of exemption where documentary conditions are met, set aside penalties, and extended cum-duty benefit where applicable. The remand concerned factual and documentary compliance and did not dispense with mandatory conditions of the Notification. Because the impugned order primarily required factual verification rather than deciding a pure question of law, it did not raise a substantial question of law warranting interference.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Mar 2026 08:34:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=888587" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (3) TMI 29 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787274</link>
      <description>The article addresses exemption under Notification No. 27/2012-ST and the appellate tribunal&#039;s remand limited to documentary verification of certificates required for exemption; substantive eligibility (services to diplomatic missions) was not disputed. The tribunal directed conditional grant of exemption where documentary conditions are met, set aside penalties, and extended cum-duty benefit where applicable. The remand concerned factual and documentary compliance and did not dispense with mandatory conditions of the Notification. Because the impugned order primarily required factual verification rather than deciding a pure question of law, it did not raise a substantial question of law warranting interference.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787274</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>