#construction services

The Siliguri State Consumer Commission ruled that complaints alleging structural defects in residential construction cannot be summarily dismissed at the admission stage merely on speculative grounds about commercial intent. This sets a vital precedent ensuring consumers get a fair hearing when alleging deficiency in service, reinforcing procedural fairness under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

CESTAT Kolkata holds that 67% service tax abatement under Notification No. 1/2006-ST cannot be denied merely due to procedural lapses like non-claim in ST-3 returns. The ruling reinforces that substantive benefits under tax laws prevail over technical non-compliance, impacting construction and works contract service providers.

CESTAT New Delhi ruled that the revenue cannot impose service tax on alleged residential complex construction based solely on legal notices; it must provide concrete evidence proving the nature of the construction as a taxable service. This shifts the evidentiary burden decisively to the tax authority, protecting developers from speculative assessments and reinforcing due process in indirect tax disputes.

CESTAT Kolkata rules that residential construction projects with fewer than 12 units are exempt from service tax under the Finance Act, 1994. The tribunal quashed the demand, holding that reliance solely on ST-3 form and bank statement comparisons without substantive evidence lacks legal basis, setting a precedent for audit compliance challenges.

CESTAT Chandigarh rules that construction services for warehousing corporations are taxable under Finance Act 1994 if commercial use is possible, even for agricultural storage facilities.

CESTAT Hyderabad holds service tax cannot be imposed on construction services where flats are sold with separate construction agreements for personal use, clarifying classification under Works Contract.