https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783772 Where construction was executed as an indivisible composite contract involving supply of materials and provision of services, the Tribunal held it could not be classified under "Construction of Residential Complex Service" because service tax under that entry applied to pure service contracts, and "works contract service" was introduced only w.e.f. 01.06.2007, indicating composite works contracts were not covered earlier; consequently, the demand of service tax with interest and penalties under ss. 76 and 78 was set aside. However, since the assessee admitted providing works contract services but failed to obtain registration and file ST-3 returns, penalty under s. 77 for such statutory non-compliance was upheld. en-us Thu, 18 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 23 Dec 2025 07:59:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783772 Where construction was executed as an indivisible composite contract involving supply of materials and provision of services, the Tribunal held it could not be classified under "Construction of Residential Complex Service" because service tax under that entry applied to pure service contracts, and "works contract service" was introduced only w.e.f. 01.06.2007, indicating composite works contracts were not covered earlier; consequently, the demand of service tax with interest and penalties under ss. 76 and 78 was set aside. However, since the assessee admitted providing works contract services but failed to obtain registration and file ST-3 returns, penalty under s. 77 for such statutory non-compliance was upheld. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 18 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783772