<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Contractor wrongly taxed for &quot;Works Contract&quot; instead of notified &quot;Commercial Construction&quot;, denied opportunity to defend.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=83222</link>
    <description>The appellant entered into works contracts for providing services along with materials. The show cause notice proposed demand under &quot;commercial and industrial construction service&quot;, but the impugned order confirmed demand under &quot;works contract service&quot; for the period after 1st June 2007, without giving an opportunity to defend against this head. The order travelled beyond the show cause notice by demanding tax under a different head, which is impermissible as per settled legal position. Consequently, the order was set aside by the Appellate Tribunal on this ground alone.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 19 Nov 2024 08:40:49 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 19 Nov 2024 08:40:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=778320" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Contractor wrongly taxed for &quot;Works Contract&quot; instead of notified &quot;Commercial Construction&quot;, denied opportunity to defend.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=83222</link>
      <description>The appellant entered into works contracts for providing services along with materials. The show cause notice proposed demand under &quot;commercial and industrial construction service&quot;, but the impugned order confirmed demand under &quot;works contract service&quot; for the period after 1st June 2007, without giving an opportunity to defend against this head. The order travelled beyond the show cause notice by demanding tax under a different head, which is impermissible as per settled legal position. Consequently, the order was set aside by the Appellate Tribunal on this ground alone.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Nov 2024 08:40:49 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=83222</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>