Supreme Court: Joint Disciplinary Proceedings Not Mandatory in Cases Involving Multiple Officers  ||  Supreme Court: Transferred Students Cannot Claim Government Fees After College Loses Recognition  ||  Supreme Court: Arbitration Clause Applies When Earlier Agreement is Imported “Body and Soul”  ||  J&K&L High Court: Seasonal Labourers Cannot Be Regularised Amid Government’s Blanket Ban  ||  Delhi High Court: Silence Amid Sustained Vilification May Undermine Public Confidence In Judiciary  ||  Calcutta HC Stays Eastern Railway Eviction Drive Affecting Around 6,000 Slum Dwellers Near Station  ||  J&K&L HC: Repeated Arrests U/S 107 Crpc After UAPA Bail Can be Fresh PSA Detention Grounds  ||  Del HC: Arrest Memo Listing Only Reasons Cannot Substitute Person-Specific Grounds of Arrest  ||  SC: Hostile Witness Testimony Can Support Acquittal as Well, Not Only Conviction  ||  SC: Appointing Candidates on Contract Against Advertised Regular Posts is Patently Illegal    

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