https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278662 The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, a construction contractor, in a case concerning the interpretation of the explanation to Item No. 7 in Notification no. 1 of 2006. The court held that the value of goods and materials supplied free of cost by a service recipient to the provider of the taxable construction service should be excluded from the taxable value or the gross amount charged. Therefore, the court concluded that the explanation should not include the value of free goods in the gross amount, ultimately allowing the writ petition in favor of the petitioner. en-us Mon, 17 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 16 Feb 2019 06:27:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278662 The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, a construction contractor, in a case concerning the interpretation of the explanation to Item No. 7 in Notification no. 1 of 2006. The court held that the value of goods and materials supplied free of cost by a service recipient to the provider of the taxable construction service should be excluded from the taxable value or the gross amount charged. Therefore, the court concluded that the explanation should not include the value of free goods in the gross amount, ultimately allowing the writ petition in favor of the petitioner. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 17 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278662