<?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 18 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787263</link>
    <description>Service tax was not leviable on affiliation and related regulatory charges collected by a statutory educational body when those amounts were recovered in the course of statutory functions. The controlling test was whether there was an activity carried out by one person for another for consideration; charges linked to affiliation, renewal, supervision, and withdrawal, performed under statute and lacking commercial reciprocity or quid pro quo, did not satisfy that test. Interest, fines, and penalties attached to the statutory fee structure were treated as incidental and not as consideration for a taxable service. The Revenue&#039;s challenge therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Mar 2026 08:34:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=888598" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (3) TMI 18 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787263</link>
      <description>Service tax was not leviable on affiliation and related regulatory charges collected by a statutory educational body when those amounts were recovered in the course of statutory functions. The controlling test was whether there was an activity carried out by one person for another for consideration; charges linked to affiliation, renewal, supervision, and withdrawal, performed under statute and lacking commercial reciprocity or quid pro quo, did not satisfy that test. Interest, fines, and penalties attached to the statutory fee structure were treated as incidental and not as consideration for a taxable service. The Revenue&#039;s challenge therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787263</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>