Just a moment...

Top
Help
AI OCR

Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page

Try Now
×

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

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        2018 (10) TMI 1191 - 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

        Tribunal: Service tax demands pre-2007 not valid. Post-2007, tax only on works contracts. Time-barred demand rejected. The Tribunal held that the service tax demand prior to 1.6.2007 was not sustainable based on the Supreme Court's ruling on composite contracts. Regarding ...
                      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.

                          Tribunal: Service tax demands pre-2007 not valid. Post-2007, tax only on works contracts. Time-barred demand rejected.

                          The Tribunal held that the service tax demand prior to 1.6.2007 was not sustainable based on the Supreme Court's ruling on composite contracts. Regarding the service tax demand post 1.6.2007, the Tribunal determined that service tax should only be levied under works contract services for composite contracts. The Tribunal impliedly accepted the argument that the demand was time-barred. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the service tax demands, allowing the appeal with consequential relief and emphasizing the applicability of service tax under works contract services for composite contracts.




                          Issues Involved:
                          1. Whether the service tax demand prior to 1.6.2007 is sustainable.
                          2. Whether the service tax demand post 1.6.2007 should be under works contract services or under construction of residential/commercial complex services.
                          3. Whether the demand for service tax is time-barred.

                          Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

                          1. Service Tax Demand Prior to 1.6.2007:
                          The Tribunal noted that the demand prior to 1.6.2007 cannot sustain as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner Vs. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. – 2015 (39) STR 913 (SC). The Supreme Court held that there can be no levy of service tax on composite contracts (involving both service and supply of goods) prior to 1.6.2007. The Tribunal affirmed that the service tax demand for the period prior to 1.6.2007 is not sustainable and must be set aside.

                          2. Service Tax Demand Post 1.6.2007:
                          The Tribunal discussed that the appellants have discharged the service tax under works contract services under the composition scheme after 1.6.2007. The department contended that the appellants should discharge service tax under construction of residential complex service for Swarup Heritage and under commercial or industrial construction service for Jayanth Tech Park. However, the Tribunal referred to its decision in Real Value Promoters Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Chennai, which held that after 1.6.2007, in the case of composite contracts, the levy of service tax can only be under works contract service. The Tribunal concluded that the service tax liability under the category of ‘commercial or industrial construction service’ or ‘construction of complex service’ will continue to be attracted only if the activities are in the nature of services simpliciter. For activities involving indivisible composite contracts, such services will require to be exigible to service tax liabilities under ‘Works Contract Service’ as defined under section 65(105)(zzzza).

                          3. Time-Barred Demand:
                          The appellant argued that the demand for service tax in respect of both projects is wholly time-barred. The Tribunal did not explicitly address the time-barred issue in the detailed analysis, but the overall conclusion that the service tax demands cannot sustain implies that the time-barred argument was accepted implicitly.

                          Conclusion:
                          The Tribunal concluded that the demand of service tax cannot sustain. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief, if any. The Tribunal emphasized that for composite works contracts, service tax cannot be demanded under commercial or industrial construction service or construction of complex service for the periods in dispute. The operative portion of the order was pronounced in open court.
                          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