https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335336 Construction of a residential complex for occupation by employees of the recipient company was treated as housing provided for staff welfare and not as taxable construction service merely because the units were used by employees in the course of business. The dispute turned on whether the residential units retained their residential character and whether employee occupation changed the tax treatment; relying on Board circulars and prior tribunal precedent, the CESTAT held that such use did not create service tax liability under the residential complex category. The service tax demand was therefore unsustainable and the Revenue's appeal failed. en-us Wed, 02 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 30 Nov 2016 12:23:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335336 Construction of a residential complex for occupation by employees of the recipient company was treated as housing provided for staff welfare and not as taxable construction service merely because the units were used by employees in the course of business. The dispute turned on whether the residential units retained their residential character and whether employee occupation changed the tax treatment; relying on Board circulars and prior tribunal precedent, the CESTAT held that such use did not create service tax liability under the residential complex category. The service tax demand was therefore unsustainable and the Revenue's appeal failed. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 02 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335336