Clients had effective control over rented equipment. Appellants paid taxes. Not a 'Supply of Tangible Goods for Use' service. Service tax demands unsustainable.

1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available

2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.

Try both these filters in Case Laws →

Clients had effective control over rented equipment. Appellants paid taxes. Not a 'Supply of Tangible Goods for Use' service. Service tax demands unsustainable.

X X X X Extracts X X X X

....STGU: Appellants supplied generating sets/equipment on rental or lease basis to clients for specified periods. Clients used equipment at their premises, obtained licenses, procured fuel, and controlled operations. Agreements showed clients had possession and effective control without interference from appellants. Appellants paid applicable VAT/Sales Tax. CESTAT held appellants' activities did not constitute 'Supply of Tangible Goods for Use' service u/s 65(105)(zzzzj) before 01.07.2012 or declared service u/s 66E after 01.07.2012 to attract service tax liability. Demands of service tax, interest, and penalties were unsustainable. Appeal allowed.....

Contact Us At :

FAQs :

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Clients had effective control over rented equipment. Appellants paid taxes. Not a 'Supply of Tangible Goods for Use' service. Service tax demands unsustainable.