Abhishek Raja "Ram"

@abhishekrajaram

8 months ago

•View on X

š—–š—˜š—¦š—§š—”š—§ š—”š—²š˜„ š——š—²š—¹š—µš—¶ š—„š˜‚š—¹š—¶š—»š—“ š—¼š—» š—Ŗš—¼š—æš—øš˜€ š—–š—¼š—»š˜š—æš—®š—°š˜ š—¦š—²š—æš˜ƒš—¶š—°š—²š˜€ š—®š—»š—± š——š—²š—ŗš—®š—»š—± š—£š—æš—¶š—¼š—æ š˜š—¼ š—š˜‚š—¹š˜† šŸ®šŸ¬šŸ¬šŸ³ šŸ“¢ š—§š—µš—² š—§š—æš—¶š—Æš˜‚š—»š—®š—¹ š—µš—²š—¹š—±: Demand before July 2007 under 'Works Contract Services' is non-taxable; post-July 2007, no valid demand exists under applicable provisions.

šŸ” š—™š—®š—°š˜š˜€: š—–š—¼š—ŗš—½š—®š—»š˜†: M/s. Avas Vikas Ltd. š—œš˜€š˜€š˜‚š—²: Tribunal ruled the Corrigendum and service tax demand unsustainable due to non-commercial services and classification errors in works contracts. š—”š—°š˜š—¶š˜ƒš—¶š˜š˜†: The appellant provided construction services and faced a ₹22,09,97,113 service tax recovery demand, as per the show-cause notice.

āš–ļø š—š˜‚š—±š—“š—²š—ŗš—²š—»š˜: The Tribunal, citing Larsen & Toubro Ltd., ruled that demand prior to July 2007 under "Works Contract Services" was unsustainable. Post-July 2007, taxes could only be applied under a specific section, and as no demand existed, the appellant was not liable for service tax. The appeal was allowed.

šŸ“œ š—–š—®š˜€š—² š—œš—»š—³š—¼š—æš—ŗš—®š˜š—¶š—¼š—»: š—§š—¶š˜š—¹š—²: M/s. Avas Vikas Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise š—¢š—æš—±š—²š—æ š——š—®š˜š—²: 02 December 2022 šŸ“œ This judgment reaffirms that demands outside statutory classification and for non-commercial services are unsustainable under law.

More from @abhishekrajaramReply on X

Page created with TweetHunter

Write your own