HomeIndirect TaxesService Tax Exemption on Road Construction Depends on Public Use: CESTAT

Service Tax Exemption on Road Construction Depends on Public Use: CESTAT

Published on

🚀 Stay Connected With JurisHour

WhatsApp X Telegram

The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has remanded a service tax dispute involving a construction contractor to the adjudicating authority, holding that the key issue is whether roads constructed under a government work order were meant for use by the general public—a requirement for claiming exemption from service tax. The…

Membership Required

You must be a member to access this content.

View Membership Levels

Already a member? Log in here
Mariya Paliwala
Mariya Paliwalahttps://www.jurishour.in/
Mariya is the Senior Editor at Juris Hour. She has 7+ years of experience on covering tax litigation stories from the Supreme Court, High Courts and various tribunals including CESTAT, ITAT, NCLAT, NCLT, etc. Mariya graduated from MLSU Law College, Udaipur (Raj.) with B.A.LL.B. and also holds an LL.M. She started her career as a freelance tax reporter in the leading online legal news companies.

Latest articles

JURISHOUR | TAX LAW DAILY BULLETIN : 13 AUGUST, 2026

Here’s the Tax Law Daily Bulletin for August 13, 2026.GSTNO JURISDICTIONAL BAR U/S 6(2)(B)...

Electricity Theft Can’t Be Alleged on Suspicion Alone; Inspection Report Must Record Evidence of Theft: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a consumer cannot be proceeded against for theft...

Appellate Courts Must Decide Cases on Existing Evidence Where Issues Are Already Covered: Supreme Court Quashes Remand

The Supreme Court has reiterated that remand of a civil matter to the trial...

More like this

JURISHOUR | TAX LAW DAILY BULLETIN : 13 AUGUST, 2026

Here’s the Tax Law Daily Bulletin for August 13, 2026.GSTNO JURISDICTIONAL BAR U/S 6(2)(B)...

Electricity Theft Can’t Be Alleged on Suspicion Alone; Inspection Report Must Record Evidence of Theft: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a consumer cannot be proceeded against for theft...