https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772329 An implementing agency under a centrally sponsored scheme funded by central grant was not liable to service tax on amounts received for executing flood lighting work, because the grant was not consideration for a taxable service and the scheme framework treated the agency as a supervisor and implementer rather than a service provider. Composite subcontracted contracts involving both material supply and execution were held to be works contracts, not Erection, Commissioning or Installation Service, since the service and goods elements could not be artificially separated. Accordingly, tax raised under the wrong service category could not stand, and the connected penalty also failed. en-us Tue, 29 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 07 Jun 2025 08:32:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772329 An implementing agency under a centrally sponsored scheme funded by central grant was not liable to service tax on amounts received for executing flood lighting work, because the grant was not consideration for a taxable service and the scheme framework treated the agency as a supervisor and implementer rather than a service provider. Composite subcontracted contracts involving both material supply and execution were held to be works contracts, not Erection, Commissioning or Installation Service, since the service and goods elements could not be artificially separated. Accordingly, tax raised under the wrong service category could not stand, and the connected penalty also failed. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 29 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772329