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.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
CESTAT ruled ADA's activities are taxable under "construction of complex service" despite being a development authority. Court rejected appellant's claim of exemption as a government authority, finding services were not statutory functions. Following L&T precedent, CESTAT directed recalculation of tax value with applicable abatements. Extended limitation period was invalidated as ADA, being a state development body, lacked evasion intent. Only normal limitation period demand sustained. Matter remanded to Original Authority for de novo adjudication on value determination after allowing abatements. Appeal partially allowed with specific direction to reassess tax liability within normal limitation period.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.