https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260405 The Commission held in favor of the complainants, directing the opposite party to deliver possession of the flats by revised dates, pay compensation at 12% per annum for delay, bear the increased service tax, and cover litigation costs. The Commission rejected arguments on jurisdiction, limitation period, and the applicability of an arbitration clause, emphasizing consumer rights and the continuous nature of the wrong. Commercial intent in purchasing the flats was not deemed relevant, with the focus on timely possession and compensation for the delay. en-us Mon, 08 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 02 Jan 2016 10:59:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260405 The Commission held in favor of the complainants, directing the opposite party to deliver possession of the flats by revised dates, pay compensation at 12% per annum for delay, bear the increased service tax, and cover litigation costs. The Commission rejected arguments on jurisdiction, limitation period, and the applicability of an arbitration clause, emphasizing consumer rights and the continuous nature of the wrong. Commercial intent in purchasing the flats was not deemed relevant, with the focus on timely possession and compensation for the delay. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 08 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260405