https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751447 CESTAT Ahmedabad allowed the appeal, ruling that separate contracts for goods supply and erection/commissioning/installation services should be treated distinctly. The tribunal held that where clear separate contracts exist for goods and services, with VAT paid on goods and service tax on services, the transaction cannot be classified as works contract service. Following SC precedents in BSNL v. Union of India and Imagic Creative cases, the tribunal confirmed that VAT and service tax are mutually exclusive, and splitting composite contracts is constitutionally permitted when distinct agreements are discernible. en-us Mon, 15 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 16 Apr 2024 16:14:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751447 CESTAT Ahmedabad allowed the appeal, ruling that separate contracts for goods supply and erection/commissioning/installation services should be treated distinctly. The tribunal held that where clear separate contracts exist for goods and services, with VAT paid on goods and service tax on services, the transaction cannot be classified as works contract service. Following SC precedents in BSNL v. Union of India and Imagic Creative cases, the tribunal confirmed that VAT and service tax are mutually exclusive, and splitting composite contracts is constitutionally permitted when distinct agreements are discernible. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 15 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751447