https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245242 CESTAT Ahmedabad ruled in favor of the assessee regarding service tax refund on construction contracts. The tribunal held that agreements between builders/developers and prospective buyers for residential units in complexes with more than 12 units were works contracts not covered under Section 65(105)(ZZZh) prior to July 1, 2010. The explanation added to this section effective July 1, 2010 expanded its scope and was not clarificatory, thus cannot have retrospective effect. Since service tax was paid under protest, limitation period did not apply. The tribunal rejected unjust enrichment claims as no evidence showed service tax was charged to customers, making refund allowable. en-us Fri, 14 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 27 May 2025 10:45:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245242 CESTAT Ahmedabad ruled in favor of the assessee regarding service tax refund on construction contracts. The tribunal held that agreements between builders/developers and prospective buyers for residential units in complexes with more than 12 units were works contracts not covered under Section 65(105)(ZZZh) prior to July 1, 2010. The explanation added to this section effective July 1, 2010 expanded its scope and was not clarificatory, thus cannot have retrospective effect. Since service tax was paid under protest, limitation period did not apply. The tribunal rejected unjust enrichment claims as no evidence showed service tax was charged to customers, making refund allowable. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 14 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245242