P&H HC: Eyewitness Account Not Credible if Eyewitness Directly Identifies Accused in Court  ||  Delhi HC: Conditions u/s 45 PMLA Have to Give Way to Article 21 When Accused Incarcerated for Long  ||  Delhi High Court: Delhi Police to Add Grounds of Arrest in Arrest Memo  ||  Kerala High Court: Giving Seniority on the Basis of Rules is a Policy Decision  ||  Del. HC: Where Arbitrator has Taken Plausible View, Court Cannot Interfere u/s 34 of A&C Act  ||  Ker. HC: No Question of Estoppel Against Party Where Error is Committed by Court Itself  ||  Supreme Court: Revenue Entries are Admissible as Evidence of Possession  ||  SC: Mere Breakup of Relationship Between Consenting Couple Can’t Result in Criminal Proceedings  ||  SC: Bar u/s 195 CrPC Not Attracted Where Proceedings Initiated Pursuant to Judicial Order  ||  NTF Gives Comprehensive Suggestions on Enhancing Better Working Conditions of Medical Professions    

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 2024 - All Rights Reserved