<?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 (8) TMI 1517 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=797643</link>
    <description>Before the service-tax definition of &quot;person&quot; took effect, a sovereign municipal corporation collecting advertisement tax or licence fee for advertisement displays was not treated as providing the taxable service of selling advertising space. Amounts levied under municipal law pursuant to Article 243X were statutory advertisement tax rather than consideration for a taxable service, so no service-tax liability arose for the relevant pre-1 July 2012 period. Extended limitation was unavailable because the dispute involved interpretation of charging provisions and no suppression with intent to evade tax was attributable to the local body. Consequently, the demand, interest and penalties were unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 24 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 26 Aug 2026 08:27:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=919099" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (8) TMI 1517 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=797643</link>
      <description>Before the service-tax definition of &quot;person&quot; took effect, a sovereign municipal corporation collecting advertisement tax or licence fee for advertisement displays was not treated as providing the taxable service of selling advertising space. Amounts levied under municipal law pursuant to Article 243X were statutory advertisement tax rather than consideration for a taxable service, so no service-tax liability arose for the relevant pre-1 July 2012 period. Extended limitation was unavailable because the dispute involved interpretation of charging provisions and no suppression with intent to evade tax was attributable to the local body. Consequently, the demand, interest and penalties were unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 24 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=797643</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>