Just a moment...
Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review. 
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether, in relation to the services provided to the service recipient, the value of materials purchased in the name of the service recipient and supplied at site for erection, commissioning and installation could be included in the gross value of taxable services, and whether the demand attributable to such material value was liable to be set aside.
Analysis: The material for the Suzlon contract was not purchased by the appellant and was not sold by it to the service recipient. The invoices for the supply of material were in the name of the service recipient, showing that the material belonged to the recipient and was used for carrying out the service. On that basis, the value of such material did not form part of the gross value of the service rendered by the appellant. The earlier remand regarding availability of Notification No. 12/2003-ST applied only where goods were sold to the service recipient, and the facts here did not justify inclusion of the material value in taxable value.
Conclusion: The demand attributable to the material value relatable to the Suzlon contract was unsustainable and was set aside. The order concerning the L&T contract was left undisturbed.