SC: CIRP Need Not Be Set Aside Solely for Fraudulent Filing of Section 9 Plea  ||  Supreme Court: Compromise Decree Passed Without Impleading Necessary Party is Void  ||  SC: Cheque Dishonour Notice Valid if Sent to Drawer’s Address and Received by Family  ||  J&K&L HC: Minority During Attestation Cannot Justify Decades-Long Delay in Challenging Mutation  ||  Bombay HC: WhatsApp Circulation of Objectionable Photos Can Attract SC/ST Act  ||  J&K&L HC: Cardiac Arrest From Stress of Long-Distance Driving is Compensable  ||  Delhi HC: Accused Cannot Delay Trial and Then Rely on Delay to Seek Bail  ||  Calcutta HC: Insurer Must Compensate Child’s Accidental Death Despite Driver’s Fake Licence  ||  Bombay HC Tells X to Take Down Defamatory Post Targeting Serum Institute, CEO Adar Poonawalla  ||  Delhi High Court Restores Arbitral Award in DMRC’s Favour Passed by Employee-Arbitrator    

Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs, Kerala and Ors. v. Larsen and Toubro Ltd. and Ors. - (Supreme Court) (20 Aug 2015)

No machinery in Finance Act, 1994 to levy and assess service tax on indivisible composite works contracts

MANU/SC/0887/2015

Service Tax

A composite works contract should be bifurcated and ascertained before being taxed, but the same is not provided for in the Finance Act, 1994. The Court held that the 'gross amount charged', under Section 67 of the Act, 1994 refers to the gross amount for the service provided, not the gross amount of the works contract as a whole from which various deductions have to be made to determine the service element.

Relevant : Section 67 Finance Act, 1994 Act State of Madras v. Gannon Dunkerley and Co. (Madras) Ltd. MANU/SC/0152/1958 Gannon Dunkerley and Co. and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. MANU/SC/0437/1993 Jharkhand v. Voltas Ltd., East Singhbhum MANU/SC/2214/2007

Tags : SERVICE TAX   COMPOSITE CONTRACT   GROSS AMOUNT  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved