SC: POCSO Guilt Presumption Not Absolute, Acquits Accused  ||  Supreme Court: Promotion Cannot Be Claimed as a Vested Right under Repealed Rules  ||  Supreme Court: Promotion Cannot Be Claimed as a Vested Right under Repealed Rules  ||  SC: Unexplained 5-Day Sample Custody Gap Breached S.52A, Acquits 2 after 20 Years  ||  P&H High Court: Illegal Search Alone Does Not Justify Quashing of Complaint under PNDT Act  ||  Bom HC: Creating WhatsApp Group Without Employer's Permission Not Ground for Compulsory Retirement  ||  Madras HC: Lack of Son’s Moral Support Alone Cannot Sustain Father’s Maintenance Claim under CrPC  ||  Kerala HC: University Professor doesn't Occupy 'Public Office', Quo Warranto Not Maintainable  ||  Bombay HC Allows Cutting of 1,237 Mangroves for Connector Bridge in Mumbai’s Western Suburbs  ||  Calcutta HC Orders Return of 3-Year-Old to Adoptive Couple, he wasn't Abandoned    

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