https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3610 The court ruled in favor of the Revenue, holding that the applicant is liable to pay service tax in respect of the proposed activities 1 and 2 under sub-clause (zzzh) of section 65(105) of the Finance Act, 1994. The first question was not specifically answered as it was deemed unnecessary. The judgment emphasized the comprehensive nature of the term "in relation to" and the intent of the legislature to include all correlated and incidental services within the scope of taxable services related to the construction of residential complexes. en-us Mon, 07 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 25 Mar 2014 14:19:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3610 The court ruled in favor of the Revenue, holding that the applicant is liable to pay service tax in respect of the proposed activities 1 and 2 under sub-clause (zzzh) of section 65(105) of the Finance Act, 1994. The first question was not specifically answered as it was deemed unnecessary. The judgment emphasized the comprehensive nature of the term "in relation to" and the intent of the legislature to include all correlated and incidental services within the scope of taxable services related to the construction of residential complexes. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 07 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3610