https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446391 The CESTAT Allahabad ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside service tax demands made under partial reverse charge mechanism. The revenue authorities incorrectly classified work contracts involving supply of material and labor as Manpower Supply Services under Section 68 of Finance Act, 1994 and Notification No. 30/2012-ST. The tribunal held that contracts requiring both material supply and labor constitute work contract services under Section 65(54), not manpower supply services. Service tax liability for work contracts falls on service providers, not recipients. The demand was legally unsustainable as service providers hadn't paid their 25% portion under the notification. en-us Tue, 07 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 04 Dec 2023 08:43:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446391 The CESTAT Allahabad ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside service tax demands made under partial reverse charge mechanism. The revenue authorities incorrectly classified work contracts involving supply of material and labor as Manpower Supply Services under Section 68 of Finance Act, 1994 and Notification No. 30/2012-ST. The tribunal held that contracts requiring both material supply and labor constitute work contract services under Section 65(54), not manpower supply services. Service tax liability for work contracts falls on service providers, not recipients. The demand was legally unsustainable as service providers hadn't paid their 25% portion under the notification. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 07 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446391