<?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 (4) TMI 1829 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790760</link>
    <description>Government-controlled citizen-service societies were treated as performing statutory functions, not commercial services, where they issued licences, certificates and other public documents for prescribed statutory fees under State control. The exemption for services by a governmental authority relating to functions entrusted to municipalities and panchayats was held to cover these activities, so the service tax demand on merits was unsustainable. The record also did not show suppression, wilful misstatement or intent to evade tax, because the dispute was interpretational and the activities were in the public domain under government audit and supervision. Accordingly, the extended period of limitation and the penalties based on it were held to be unsustainable, and consequential relief followed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 30 Apr 2026 07:19:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=899220" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (4) TMI 1829 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790760</link>
      <description>Government-controlled citizen-service societies were treated as performing statutory functions, not commercial services, where they issued licences, certificates and other public documents for prescribed statutory fees under State control. The exemption for services by a governmental authority relating to functions entrusted to municipalities and panchayats was held to cover these activities, so the service tax demand on merits was unsustainable. The record also did not show suppression, wilful misstatement or intent to evade tax, because the dispute was interpretational and the activities were in the public domain under government audit and supervision. Accordingly, the extended period of limitation and the penalties based on it were held to be unsustainable, and consequential relief followed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790760</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>