https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328483 The HC held that Parliament has competence to levy service tax on preferential location charges as these involve a service element reflecting customer preferences and value addition. However, service tax cannot be imposed on the undivided share of land or goods in a composite contract for purchase of flats, as there is no mechanism to ascertain the value of the service component separately. The explanation extending service tax to composite contracts under Section 65(105)(zzzh) was struck down. The challenge to clause (zzzzu) relating to preferential location charges was dismissed. The court ruled in favor of the assessee regarding composite contracts, directing refund with 6% interest of any service tax collected and deposited under the impugned provision. en-us Fri, 03 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 24 Jul 2025 11:25:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328483 The HC held that Parliament has competence to levy service tax on preferential location charges as these involve a service element reflecting customer preferences and value addition. However, service tax cannot be imposed on the undivided share of land or goods in a composite contract for purchase of flats, as there is no mechanism to ascertain the value of the service component separately. The explanation extending service tax to composite contracts under Section 65(105)(zzzh) was struck down. The challenge to clause (zzzzu) relating to preferential location charges was dismissed. The court ruled in favor of the assessee regarding composite contracts, directing refund with 6% interest of any service tax collected and deposited under the impugned provision. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 03 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328483