https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=389186 The Court set aside the impugned order and ruled in favor of the petitioner, concluding that the contract in question was a composite works contract not liable for service tax under the Finance Act, 1994. The Court emphasized the distinction between service contracts and composite works contracts, clarifying that the tax levy applied only to service contracts. The writ petition was disposed of in favor of the petitioner based on the established facts and legal clarity provided by the Court's decision. en-us Fri, 22 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 30 Mar 2020 12:17:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=389186 The Court set aside the impugned order and ruled in favor of the petitioner, concluding that the contract in question was a composite works contract not liable for service tax under the Finance Act, 1994. The Court emphasized the distinction between service contracts and composite works contracts, clarifying that the tax levy applied only to service contracts. The writ petition was disposed of in favor of the petitioner based on the established facts and legal clarity provided by the Court's decision. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 22 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=389186