https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784897 The contract was for execution of specified works such as unloading, washing, stacking and cleaning, with consideration linked to work performed rather than the number of persons deployed. Because the workforce remained under the contractor's control and supervision, the arrangement was treated as lump sum work execution and not manpower recruitment or supply agency service. The tax demand therefore failed on merits, and the penalty also could not survive. en-us Fri, 09 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 14 Jan 2026 08:56:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784897 The contract was for execution of specified works such as unloading, washing, stacking and cleaning, with consideration linked to work performed rather than the number of persons deployed. Because the workforce remained under the contractor's control and supervision, the arrangement was treated as lump sum work execution and not manpower recruitment or supply agency service. The tax demand therefore failed on merits, and the penalty also could not survive. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 09 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784897