https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780473 A single appeal by the corporate headquarters was treated as maintainable where common adjudication covered multiple registered units of the same legal entity with centrally maintained accounts. Separate contracts for equipment supply, separately invoiced and subjected to VAT/CST, could not be merged into the value of works contract service merely because the arrangement was EPC/turnkey or contained a cross-fall breach clause; the distinct supply contract was excluded from taxable value. Extended limitation was unavailable because the dispute concerned contractual interpretation and there was no proven suppression, wilful misstatement, or intent to evade tax, so the related penalties also failed. en-us Tue, 28 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 31 Oct 2025 08:23:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780473 A single appeal by the corporate headquarters was treated as maintainable where common adjudication covered multiple registered units of the same legal entity with centrally maintained accounts. Separate contracts for equipment supply, separately invoiced and subjected to VAT/CST, could not be merged into the value of works contract service merely because the arrangement was EPC/turnkey or contained a cross-fall breach clause; the distinct supply contract was excluded from taxable value. Extended limitation was unavailable because the dispute concerned contractual interpretation and there was no proven suppression, wilful misstatement, or intent to evade tax, so the related penalties also failed. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 28 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780473