<?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>Bareboat charter arrangements transferring possession and control were outside taxable service, and the prior final ruling bound the parties.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99315</link>
    <description>Bareboat charter arrangements for hiring dredgers, vessels and allied equipment involved transfer of right to possession and effective control, so the transactions did not fall within taxable supply of tangible goods service and, after 1 July 2012, were also not taxable as a declared service. The Tribunal held that the demand for service tax, interest and penalties failed because the authorities proceeded on the incorrect premise that there was no transfer of right to use. It further relied on the finality of the assessee&#039;s earlier decision on identical transactions, which bound the parties and independently supported setting aside the demand.</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=899159" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Bareboat charter arrangements transferring possession and control were outside taxable service, and the prior final ruling bound the parties.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99315</link>
      <description>Bareboat charter arrangements for hiring dredgers, vessels and allied equipment involved transfer of right to possession and effective control, so the transactions did not fall within taxable supply of tangible goods service and, after 1 July 2012, were also not taxable as a declared service. The Tribunal held that the demand for service tax, interest and penalties failed because the authorities proceeded on the incorrect premise that there was no transfer of right to use. It further relied on the finality of the assessee&#039;s earlier decision on identical transactions, which bound the parties and independently supported setting aside the demand.</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=99315</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>