https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364545 Where the same construction-related service tax was paid twice by both the main contractor and the subcontractor, the excess tax could not be retained by the State and refund to the payer was legally warranted. The record showed no separate taxable service by the main contractor beyond the subcontracted work, so double taxation was not justified. The materials also indicated a composite works contract with supply of materials and execution of work, supported by VAT or sales tax payment on the material component. For the period before 01.06.2007, that composite activity was not liable under commercial or industrial construction service on the works-contract component, and the refund claim succeeded. en-us Wed, 16 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 01 Aug 2018 06:47:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364545 Where the same construction-related service tax was paid twice by both the main contractor and the subcontractor, the excess tax could not be retained by the State and refund to the payer was legally warranted. The record showed no separate taxable service by the main contractor beyond the subcontracted work, so double taxation was not justified. The materials also indicated a composite works contract with supply of materials and execution of work, supported by VAT or sales tax payment on the material component. For the period before 01.06.2007, that composite activity was not liable under commercial or industrial construction service on the works-contract component, and the refund claim succeeded. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 16 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364545