<?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 (10) TMI 1076 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=801133</link>
    <description>Token amounts collected from designated roadside establishments under a passenger-facility scheme did not constitute consideration for a taxable declared service. Taxability under the Finance Act, 1994 requires an activity undertaken by one person for another for consideration. The prescribed provision of passenger amenities and regulated bus halts served safety, hygiene and administrative purposes, without an identifiable service-provider and service-recipient relationship or quid pro quo. Permitting buses to stop at approved locations was integral to passenger transportation and did not grant an exclusive right, amount to promotion or marketing, or constitute renting of property. The service-tax demand was therefore unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 14 Oct 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Oct 2026 05:20:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=930365" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (10) TMI 1076 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=801133</link>
      <description>Token amounts collected from designated roadside establishments under a passenger-facility scheme did not constitute consideration for a taxable declared service. Taxability under the Finance Act, 1994 requires an activity undertaken by one person for another for consideration. The prescribed provision of passenger amenities and regulated bus halts served safety, hygiene and administrative purposes, without an identifiable service-provider and service-recipient relationship or quid pro quo. Permitting buses to stop at approved locations was integral to passenger transportation and did not grant an exclusive right, amount to promotion or marketing, or constitute renting of property. The service-tax demand was therefore unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 14 Oct 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=801133</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>