Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal / NCLT & Others
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        whatsappJoin Channel
        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        2018 (2) TMI 1119 - AT - Service Tax

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Appellate Tribunal rules no service tax on indivisible Works Contract Service pre-01/06/2007, providing relief to appellants. The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Bangalore, in a case involving multiple appeals against impugned orders dated 22/03/2007 and 24/05/2007, addressed the ...
                      Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.

                          Appellate Tribunal rules no service tax on indivisible Works Contract Service pre-01/06/2007, providing relief to appellants.

                          The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Bangalore, in a case involving multiple appeals against impugned orders dated 22/03/2007 and 24/05/2007, addressed the issue of whether service tax could be imposed on indivisible Works Contract Service (WCS) before 01/06/2007. The Tribunal, relying on the law laid down by the Supreme Court in previous cases, including Larsen & Toubro Ltd., held that prior to 01/06/2007, service tax could only be levied on service contracts simpliciter, not on composite indivisible works contracts. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders in favor of the appellant and dismissed the Department's appeal, providing relief based on established legal principles and interpretations.




                          Issues Involved:
                          - Appeal against impugned orders dated 22/03/2007 and 24/05/2007
                          - Identical issue in four appeals taken up together
                          - Department's appeal to enhance penalty in one case
                          - Whether service tax can be levied on indivisible Works Contract Service (WCS) prior to 01/06/2007
                          - Sustainability of impugned orders passed by the Commissioner
                          - Interpretation of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
                          - Applicability of charging section for service tax on WCS pre-01/06/2007
                          - Justification for demand of service tax under erection, commissioning, and installation service
                          - Consideration of composite contracts and turnkey projects
                          - Application of extended period under Section 73 of the Act

                          Analysis:

                          The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Bangalore involved multiple appeals against impugned orders dated 22/03/2007 and 24/05/2007, addressing identical issues collectively. The Department also filed an appeal to enhance the penalty in one case. The central question revolved around whether service tax could be imposed on indivisible Works Contract Service (WCS) before 01/06/2007. The appellant contended that the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in previous cases, including Larsen & Toubro Ltd., established that prior to 01/06/2007, service tax could only be levied on service contracts simpliciter, not on composite indivisible works contracts.

                          The appellant argued that their activities fell under composite individual WCS, which was brought into the tax net only from 01/06/2007 under the category of WCS. They emphasized that the intention in such projects was towards the project as a whole, with all activities like supply, erection, installation, and commissioning carried out by the same party. The appellant cited legal precedents and circulars to support their position, highlighting that services introduced through new service definitions were not taxable under earlier services.

                          The Tribunal, after considering submissions and legal references, concluded that the issue had been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Larsen & Toubro Ltd. The Tribunal noted that prior to 01/06/2007, there was no specific provision to levy service tax on WCS, as highlighted in previous judgments. Referring to the appellant's own case and subsequent decisions, the Tribunal found that the impugned orders were not sustainable in law. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders in all three appeals by allowing the appeals of the assessee, while dismissing the Department's appeal. The judgment provided consequential relief to the appellant, based on the established legal principles and interpretations.

                          This comprehensive analysis of the judgment showcases the detailed consideration of legal arguments, precedents, and statutory provisions by the Tribunal in resolving the issues raised in the appeals before them.
                          Full Summary is available for active users!
                          Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                          Topics

                          ActsIncome Tax
                          No Records Found