{"id":54621,"date":"2016-07-05T09:53:55","date_gmt":"2016-07-05T04:23:55","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=54621"},"modified":"2016-09-13T12:07:39","modified_gmt":"2016-09-13T06:37:39","slug":"service-tax-demand-notice-on-saurav-ganguly-quashed","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/07\/05\/service-tax-demand-notice-on-saurav-ganguly-quashed\/","title":{"rendered":"Service Tax demand notice on Saurav Ganguly, quashed"},"content":{"rendered":"<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Calcutta High Court<\/strong>: Holding that the show cause notice dated 26<sup>th<\/sup> September 2011, demanding service tax from the Petitioner, was barred by limitation, the Court constituted by Justice Arijit Banerjee\u00a0 quashed it, as well as the Circular of the Central Board for Custom and Excise dated 26<sup>th<\/sup> July, 2010 which sought to tax the composite amount of fees paid to IPL players for cricketing and promotional activities, if indistinguishable. The amount of Rs. 1, 51,66,500\/- was sought as service tax from Mr Sourav Ganguly, upon amounts received for writing articles in magazines, anchoring TV shows, brand endorsements under &#8216;business auxiliary services&#8217; [Section 65(19) of the Finance Act, 1994] and IPL fees from KKR as &#8216;business support service&#8217; under Section 65(105) (zzzq). The Court ordered a refund of the Rs. 1, 51, 66,500\/- and Rs. 50 lakhs deposited by the Petitioner.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Court rejected as <em>ipse dixit<\/em> grounds of suppression of facts used to extend limitation for demand of service tax, from 1 year to 5 as per Section 73, Finance Act. The Court referred the decision in <em>Simplex Infrastructures Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Kolkata <\/em><a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/LoginForNewsLink\/2016_SCC_OnLine_Cal_571\">2016 SCC OnLine Cal 571<\/a> wherein it was said that question of limitation is a question of jurisdiction and Commission not to have authority to issue notice after a period of limitation. In this connection, the Court held that it cannot be said that the writ petition is not maintainable at all and should not be entertained for adjudication and once a writ petition is admitted, affidavits are invited from respondents and the matter comes up for final hearing before the Court, it would be unjust and unfair to dismiss the writ petition only on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy. and\u00a0 <em>Commissioner of Central Excise v. Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd. <\/em>2007 (211) ELT 193 .<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Though limitation barred its issue, the notice was quashed on other grounds. The Court noted that the definition of &#8216;business support services&#8217; was exhaustive and indicated activities promoting business or commercial objectives, inapplicable to the Petitioner&#8217;s writing articles or anchoring TV shows. Further, brand promotion\/endorsement was taxable under Section 65(105)(zzzzq) from 1<sup>st<\/sup> July 2010, after which the Petitioner had paid service tax as Celebrity Brand Ambassador. &#8216;Brand endorsement&#8217; constituted a different category from &#8216;business auxiliary service&#8217;, as it was settled law that a levy introduced by amendment\u00a0 to the law did not exist prior to the enactment; hence tax from 1 May 2006 to 30<sup>th<\/sup> June 2010 upon endorsements as &#8216;business auxiliary services&#8217; was not recoverable. The Court approved <em>Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi v. Shriya Saran <\/em>2014 (36) STR 641 where it was held activities prior to 1 July 2010 could not be taxable\u00a0 and <em>Indian National Shipowners&#8217; Association v. Union of India <\/em>2009 (14) STR 289.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Court drew a parallel with the Order in Appeal No. 330-332\/SVS\/RTK\/2014, dated 6 June 2014, where the Appellant, of Chennai Super Kings, was held to be in the employ of IPL and not an independent worker providing taxable service, as he was constrained by the franchisee.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Court remonstrated with the Central Board of Excise and Custom not to seek to &#8216;legislate by issuing circulars\/instructions&#8217;, citing<em> Commissioner of Central Excise, Bolpur v. Ratan Melting &amp; Wire Industries <\/em>2008 (12) STR 416 (an instruction\/circular issued by a Ministry could not expand the scope of law, nor create tax liability). It would be <em>de hors <\/em>the statute to levy tax on composite amount of the fees for match playing and participation in promotional activities. [Sourav Ganguly v. Union of India., <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/LoginForNewsLink\/2016_SCC_OnLine_Cal_3234\">2016 SCC OnLine Cal 3234<\/a> \u00a0decided on 30-06-2016]<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Calcutta High Court: Holding that the show cause notice dated 26th September 2011, demanding service tax from the Petitioner, was barred by <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":52131,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[2513,7751,3208],"class_list":["post-54621","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-Calcutta_High_Court","tag-saurav-ganguly","tag-service_tax"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v26.4 (Yoast SEO v26.4) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>Service Tax demand notice on Saurav Ganguly, quashed | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/07\/05\/service-tax-demand-notice-on-saurav-ganguly-quashed\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Service Tax demand notice on Saurav Ganguly, quashed\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Calcutta High Court: Holding that the show cause notice dated 26th September 2011, demanding service tax from the Petitioner, was barred by\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/07\/05\/service-tax-demand-notice-on-saurav-ganguly-quashed\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2016-07-05T04:23:55+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-09-13T06:37:39+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/calcutta-court.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Sucheta\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Sucheta\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"3 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/07\/05\/service-tax-demand-notice-on-saurav-ganguly-quashed\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/07\/05\/service-tax-demand-notice-on-saurav-ganguly-quashed\/\",\"name\":\"Service Tax demand notice on Saurav Ganguly, quashed | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/07\/05\/service-tax-demand-notice-on-saurav-ganguly-quashed\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/07\/05\/service-tax-demand-notice-on-saurav-ganguly-quashed\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/calcutta-court.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2016-07-05T04:23:55+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-13T06:37:39+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/07\/05\/service-tax-demand-notice-on-saurav-ganguly-quashed\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/07\/05\/service-tax-demand-notice-on-saurav-ganguly-quashed\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/07\/05\/service-tax-demand-notice-on-saurav-ganguly-quashed\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/calcutta-court.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/calcutta-court.jpg\",\"width\":1330,\"height\":887},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/07\/05\/service-tax-demand-notice-on-saurav-ganguly-quashed\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Service Tax demand notice on Saurav Ganguly, quashed\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa\",\"name\":\"Sucheta\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Sucheta\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/legal_editor\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Service Tax demand notice on Saurav Ganguly, quashed | SCC Times","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/07\/05\/service-tax-demand-notice-on-saurav-ganguly-quashed\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Service Tax demand notice on Saurav Ganguly, quashed","og_description":"Calcutta High Court: Holding that the show cause notice dated 26th September 2011, demanding service tax from the Petitioner, was barred by","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/07\/05\/service-tax-demand-notice-on-saurav-ganguly-quashed\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2016-07-05T04:23:55+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-09-13T06:37:39+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/calcutta-court.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Sucheta","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Sucheta","Est. reading time":"3 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/07\/05\/service-tax-demand-notice-on-saurav-ganguly-quashed\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/07\/05\/service-tax-demand-notice-on-saurav-ganguly-quashed\/","name":"Service Tax demand notice on Saurav Ganguly, quashed | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/07\/05\/service-tax-demand-notice-on-saurav-ganguly-quashed\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/07\/05\/service-tax-demand-notice-on-saurav-ganguly-quashed\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/calcutta-court.jpg","datePublished":"2016-07-05T04:23:55+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-13T06:37:39+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/07\/05\/service-tax-demand-notice-on-saurav-ganguly-quashed\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/07\/05\/service-tax-demand-notice-on-saurav-ganguly-quashed\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/07\/05\/service-tax-demand-notice-on-saurav-ganguly-quashed\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/calcutta-court.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/calcutta-court.jpg","width":1330,"height":887},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/07\/05\/service-tax-demand-notice-on-saurav-ganguly-quashed\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Service Tax demand notice on Saurav Ganguly, quashed"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa","name":"Sucheta","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Sucheta"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/legal_editor\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/calcutta-court.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":32781,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/01\/15\/symbiosis-law-school-pune-wins-nujs-2nd-justice-dr-bp-saraf-national-tax-moot-court-competition-2016\/","url_meta":{"origin":54621,"position":0},"title":"Symbiosis Law School, Pune wins NUJS 2nd Justice Dr BP Saraf National Tax Moot Court Competition, 2016","author":"Sucheta","date":"January 15, 2016","format":false,"excerpt":"Reported by Kriti Srivastava","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Achievements&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Achievements","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/lawschoolnews\/achievements\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/BPSaraf.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/BPSaraf.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/BPSaraf.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/BPSaraf.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/BPSaraf.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":312455,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/01\/30\/calcutta-hc-conditional-permission-sit-in-demonstration-ourav-ganguly-cricket-coaching-camp-scc-blog\/","url_meta":{"origin":54621,"position":1},"title":"Calcutta High Court grants conditional permission for Sit-in-Demonstration in front of Sourav Ganguly Cricket Coaching Camp","author":"Ritu","date":"January 30, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"Calcutta High Court tasked the respondent authorities with ensuring the safety of participants and passerby on the demonstration dates, preventing untoward incidents or breaches of peace.","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"calcutta high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":346859,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/04\/30\/services-provided-to-individual-by-advocate-or-firm-are-exempted-from-levy-of-service-tax-orissa-hc\/","url_meta":{"origin":54621,"position":2},"title":"Services provided to individual by advocate or firm are exempted from levy of service tax; Orissa HC quashes Rs. 2 Lakhs service tax notice","author":"Editor","date":"April 30, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"Services provided by an advocate or a Partnership firm of advocates providing legal services to any person other than a business entity and a business entity with a turnover up to rupees ten lakhs in the preceding financial year are exempted from the levy of service tax.","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Orissa High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Orissa-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Orissa-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Orissa-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Orissa-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":300720,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/09\/04\/day-to-day-bickering-between-husband-wife-not-cruelty-under-section-498a-of-the-ipc-calcutta-high-court-scc-blog-legal-research\/","url_meta":{"origin":54621,"position":3},"title":"Day to day bickering between husband-wife does not amount to cruelty under Section 498A of the IPC: Calcutta High Court","author":"Ritu","date":"September 4, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Calcutta High Court held that there were latches on the part of the Trial Court in appreciation of evidence with regards to the alleged offence under Section 498A of the IPC.","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"calcutta high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":325361,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/06\/29\/calcutta-high-court-upholds-waiver-of-50-interest-on-property-tax-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":54621,"position":4},"title":"\u2018Board of Councilors have discretion to reduce interest amount\u2019; Calcutta High Court upholds waiver of 50% interest on property tax","author":"Editor","date":"June 29, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"The Calcutta High Court did not permit raising the issue of non-service of bills belatedly at the appellate stage to avoid liability of taxpayer.","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Calcutta High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Calcutta-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Calcutta-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Calcutta-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Calcutta-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":265192,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/04\/08\/promotional-activity-for-ipl-not-covered-under-business-auxillary-service-cestat\/","url_meta":{"origin":54621,"position":5},"title":"CESTAT | Promotional activity for IPL not covered under &#8216;Business Auxillary Service&#8217;; Anil Kumble not liable to pay Service Tax","author":"Editor","date":"April 8, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): The Division Coram of P. Anjani Kumar (Technical Member) and P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) allowed appeals against the order of First Appellate Authority which upheld the demand of service tax by the adjudicating authority. Show cause notices were issued based on the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/CESTATNew-Logo.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/CESTATNew-Logo.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/CESTATNew-Logo.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/CESTATNew-Logo.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/CESTATNew-Logo.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/54621","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=54621"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/54621\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/52131"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=54621"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=54621"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=54621"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}