https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=437205 Blasting activity performed at a customer's site using explosives procured under licence and separately billed, with VAT paid on the explosives, was treated as works contract service because the contract involved transfer of property in goods in execution of the work. Article 366(29A)(b) and the post-46th Amendment position require the goods element in a works contract to be treated as a deemed sale, so the dominant intention test does not govern classification where the contract otherwise answers that description. The value of explosives already subjected to VAT could not be included again in the service tax assessable value, and the demand was unsustainable. en-us Fri, 28 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 30 Apr 2023 21:23:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=437205 Blasting activity performed at a customer's site using explosives procured under licence and separately billed, with VAT paid on the explosives, was treated as works contract service because the contract involved transfer of property in goods in execution of the work. Article 366(29A)(b) and the post-46th Amendment position require the goods element in a works contract to be treated as a deemed sale, so the dominant intention test does not govern classification where the contract otherwise answers that description. The value of explosives already subjected to VAT could not be included again in the service tax assessable value, and the demand was unsustainable. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 28 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=437205