https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753785 CESTAT Chennai ruled in favor of the appellant regarding service tax on construction advances and additional works. The tribunal held that promoter/builder/developer is not liable for service tax on advances received for residential projects prior to 01.07.2010, citing Board Circular No.108/2/2009 and precedent from Krishna Homes case. For additional works, the tribunal found these were composite contracts requiring materials and services, not service simplicitor. Following Real Value Promoters precedent, such composite contracts fall under Works Contract Services, not Construction of Residential Complex Services. The demand was unsustainable and set aside, with appeal allowed. en-us Thu, 09 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 11 Jun 2024 07:55:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753785 CESTAT Chennai ruled in favor of the appellant regarding service tax on construction advances and additional works. The tribunal held that promoter/builder/developer is not liable for service tax on advances received for residential projects prior to 01.07.2010, citing Board Circular No.108/2/2009 and precedent from Krishna Homes case. For additional works, the tribunal found these were composite contracts requiring materials and services, not service simplicitor. Following Real Value Promoters precedent, such composite contracts fall under Works Contract Services, not Construction of Residential Complex Services. The demand was unsustainable and set aside, with appeal allowed. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 09 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753785