<?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>Governmental authority exemption upheld for statutory municipal functions; service tax demand, extended limitation, and penalties were set aside.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99314</link>
    <description>Entities registered as societies were treated as governmental authorities because they were established and wholly controlled by the Haryana Government to perform citizen-facing statutory functions through e-governance, and the amounts collected were statutory fees rather than commercial consideration. On that basis, services relating to municipal functions under Notification No. 25/2012-ST were exempt, so the service tax demand on merits failed. The Tribunal also found no suppression or intent to evade tax: the dispute was interpretational, the activities were in the public domain, and the entities acted under bona fide belief. The extended period and consequential penalties under Sections 77 and 78 were therefore unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 30 Apr 2026 07:19:13 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 30 Apr 2026 07:19:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=899158" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Governmental authority exemption upheld for statutory municipal functions; service tax demand, extended limitation, and penalties were set aside.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99314</link>
      <description>Entities registered as societies were treated as governmental authorities because they were established and wholly controlled by the Haryana Government to perform citizen-facing statutory functions through e-governance, and the amounts collected were statutory fees rather than commercial consideration. On that basis, services relating to municipal functions under Notification No. 25/2012-ST were exempt, so the service tax demand on merits failed. The Tribunal also found no suppression or intent to evade tax: the dispute was interpretational, the activities were in the public domain, and the entities acted under bona fide belief. The extended period and consequential penalties under Sections 77 and 78 were therefore unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Apr 2026 07:19:13 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99314</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>