Supreme Court Rebukes RBI for Remaining a Bystander as YES Bank Operated Clandestinely  ||  Supreme Court: Lower Fresh Bids Alone Cannot Justify Cancellation of an Auction  ||  Supreme Court Directs Delhi Police to Produce Section 163 BNSS Orders and Preserve CCTV Footage  ||  Supreme Court Affirms Menstrual Hygiene as a Fundamental Right, Warns States of Contempt  ||  Supreme Court Flags AI-Generated Fake Judgments Submitted in a Party’s Case Compilation  ||  Karnataka High Court: Vijay Mallya’s Flamboyant Lifestyle Hinders Settlement of Bank Claims  ||  Delhi High Court: Women can be Booked for Gang Rape without Physically Committing it  ||  Delhi High Court: Litigants Must Track Their Cases and Cannot Blame Lawyers for Their Own Inaction  ||  Allahabad High Court: Contract Workers Must Prove Work Parity With Regular Staff for Equal Pay  ||  Allahabad High Court Directs UP Trial Courts to Decide Maintenance Execution Cases Within Six Months    

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