This compilation indexes twelve rulings — from the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) and various Indian High Courts — that engage Section 65(105) of the Finance Act, 1994. The rulings span May 2024 to April 2026 and cover a range of disputes: taxability of services rendered by clubs, construction and works-contract entities, educational institutions, telecom distributors, music entertainment companies, and installation service providers. The compilation is intended for use by in-house tax teams, Big-4 associates, and law firm researchers who need a rapid-reference index of recent Section 65(105) litigation across forums.

Research index only. This page catalogues publicly available rulings for research and reference purposes. Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice, tax advice, or a recommendation to take any particular course of action. Readers should consult qualified legal counsel and verify each judgment against the full text before relying on it.

The statutory framework in one paragraph

Section 65(105) of the Finance Act, 1994 defined "taxable service" for the purposes of the service tax regime that operated in India prior to the introduction of the Goods and Services Tax in July 2017. The provision contained a large number of sub-clauses — each specifying a distinct category of service — and was the primary charging gateway through which service tax liability was determined. Disputes under this section typically arose over whether a particular activity fell within any of the enumerated sub-clauses, whether an applicable exemption or negative list entry (later introduced under Section 66D) displaced the charge, and whether associated provisions governing demand, interest, and penalty were correctly invoked. Many proceedings initiated under the Finance Act, 1994 regime continue to be litigated before CESTAT and the High Courts even after the transition to GST, because the periods of dispute predate July 2017.

The 12 rulings

1. Commissioner Of Central Excise And vs Officer Of Deputy Conservator Of

Bench: Gujarat High Court
Date: 23 April 2026
Sections engaged: 65(105), 69
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal before the Gujarat High Court arose from Final Order No. A/12204/2024 dated 26.09.2024 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Regional Bench at Ahmedabad, in Service Tax Appeal No. 12032 of 2019. The Tax Appeals (R/Tax Appeal Nos. 505 and 506 of 2025) were filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Central Goods and Services Tax, Bhavnagar, against the Officer of Deputy Conservator of Forests; the source preview does not carry sufficient detail to state the substantive holding.

2. Chikmagalur Golf Club vs Mysore

Bench: Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Date: 10 March 2026
Sections engaged: 65(105), 78
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal before the CESTAT Bangalore Regional Bench arose out of Order-in-Original No. 07/ST/2011 dated 11.10.2011 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Mysore. The department alleged that the appellant provided taxable services under the category of "Club or Association Service" but failed to discharge service tax amounting to Rs. 52,85,307/- during the period 16.06.2005 to 31.03.2009; on adjudication, the Commissioner reduced the demand to Rs. 50,98,330/- with interest and equivalent penalty, and the appellant contended before CESTAT that it is a charitable trust registered on 03.11.2000 with the objective of promoting golf and other games and tourism.

3. Serveall Land Developers Private vs Principal Commissioner Of Central

Bench: Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Date: 15 October 2025
Sections engaged: 65(105), 66D
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal before the CESTAT New Delhi Principal Bench arose out of Order-in-Original No. JAI-EXCUS-000-COM-12-16-17 dated 24.10.2016 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Jaipur (Service Tax Appeal No. 50640 of 2017). The case concerned the appellant's availment of Cenvat Credit of input services amounting to Rs. 2,39,82,982/- in the month of March 2011 — including a large portion availed on a single day, 28.03.2011 — without allegedly having provided any output services, including that of a mandap keeper, during the period October 2010 to March 2011.

4. Karanveer Singh Yadav Enterprises vs The Union Of India

Bench: Patna High Court
Date: 5 May 2025
Sections engaged: 65(105), 73(1), 77(1), 77(2), 78
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The writ petition (Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 16975 of 2024) was filed before the High Court of Judicature at Patna by Karanveer Singh Yadav Enterprises Private Limited, Patna, against the Union of India through the Chief Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax and Central Excise, Patna, and the Principal Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise, Patna-I. The source preview is procedural in nature and does not disclose the substantive ground of challenge beyond identifying the parties, the forum, and the appearance of counsel on both sides.

5. Roots Education Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Tax GST Delhi

Bench: Delhi High Court
Date: 22 April 2025
Sections engaged: 65(105)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The writ petition (W.P.(C) No. 4084/2025) was filed before the High Court of Delhi by Roots Education Pvt Ltd against the Commissioner of Central Tax GST Delhi East and others; the judgment was reserved on 01.04.2025 and pronounced on 22.04.2025. The text preview contains a tabular chronology of show cause notices and written submissions spanning financial years 2011–12 through 2014–15, indicating a multi-year service tax dispute, but does not disclose the substantive holding within the available preview.

6. D.Sivanandam vs The Assistant Commissioner

Bench: Madras High Court
Date: 7 April 2025
Sections engaged: 65(105)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The writ petition (W.P. No. 3505 of 2012) was filed before the High Court of Judicature at Madras under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Prohibition restraining the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Division, Karaikal, from proceeding further with a show cause notice proposing to levy service tax on the distribution of pre-paid and post-paid cellular connections of BSNL (i.e., SIM cards). Both counsel submitted at the outset that the issue stands covered by a series of earlier orders of the Madras High Court, including W.P. Nos. 10312 to 10315 of 2010 dated 07.01.2010.

7. Unising Projects Pvt. Ltd vs Uoi & Anr

Bench: Delhi High Court
Date: 28 February 2025
Sections engaged: 65(105)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The writ petition (W.P.(C) 7148/2008) was filed before the High Court of Delhi under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, originally in 2008, seeking quashing of the amendment made in Clause (105) of Section 65 by the Finance Act, 2005. The petitioner, engaged in providing air-conditioning systems, DG sets, power backup systems, fire-fighting rooms, electric sub-stations, water tanks, transformers, and related installation services in building complexes, challenged both the constitutional validity of the amendment and a demand of Rs. 35,40,956/- raised by letter dated 15th July, 2008 following an audit conducted in June 2008.

8. M/S Sigpack Associates vs The Commissioner

Bench: Karnataka High Court
Date: 6 January 2025
Sections engaged: 65(105), 66, 73
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The writ petition (Writ Petition No. 101492 of 2016 (T-RES)) was filed before the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by M/s Sigpack Associates, Hubballi, against the Commissioner, Central Excise and Service Tax, Belagavi, and three other respondents. The source preview is largely procedural, setting out party and counsel details, and does not disclose the substantive ground of challenge within the available extract.

9. M/S.Bharathi Constructions vs Union Of India Rep. By Its Secretary

Bench: Madras High Court
Date: 7 November 2024
Sections engaged: 65(105), 93
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The batch of writ petitions (W.P. Nos. 25212, 30736 & 30737 of 2007) was filed before the High Court of Judicature at Madras under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; W.P. No. 25212 of 2007 prayed for a declaration that the Explanation in Sl. No. 7 of Notification No. 1/2006-ST dated 01.03.2006 is ultra vires Sections 65(105)(zzq), 65(zzzh), 66 and 67 of the Finance Act, 1994, as amended, and also ultra vires Articles 14 and 265 of the Constitution of India, insofar as the petitioner — a construction entity — is concerned. The companion petitions raised connected challenges by related construction entities.

10. Sony Music Enertainment India Private vs Commissioner Cgst-Mumbai West

Bench: Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Date: 26 June 2024
Sections engaged: 65(105), 66D, 73(1)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal (Service Tax Appeal No. 86233 of 2021) was filed before the CESTAT Mumbai Regional Bench by Sony Music Entertainment India Private Limited, Mumbai, assailing Order-in-Original No. MUM/CGST/MW/COMMR/AK/52-55/2020-21 dated 27.02.2021 passed by the Commissioner of CGST, Mumbai West. The source preview indicates that the appellants were engaged in providing taxable services under various categories; the available extract does not extend to the substantive findings or the operative direction of the final order (Final Order No. A/85630/2024).

11. Ghcl Ltd vs Ce & Cgst Noida

Bench: Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Date: 22 May 2024
Sections engaged: 64, 65(105)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal (Service Tax Appeal No. 50606 of 2015) was filed before the CESTAT Allahabad Regional Bench against Order-in-Original No. 07/ST/Commissioner/Noida/2014-15 dated 22.08.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Noida. The impugned order dropped the demand of service tax amounting to Rs. 1,29,31,229/- and dropped proceedings for recovery of interest and imposition of penalty as proposed in the show cause notice, while also disallowing M/s GHCL Ltd. from passing on the service tax paid by them.

12. M/S S.S.Construction vs Union Of India And Ors

Bench: Punjab-Haryana High Court
Date: 7 May 2024
Sections engaged: 65(105), 67(4)(c), 93
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The writ petition (CWP-20584-2008 (O&M)) was decided by the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh on 7 May 2024. Both counsel submitted that the issue raised in the petition stands finally adjudicated by the Supreme Court in Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs, Kerala vs. M/s Larsen and Toubro Ltd. (2016) 1 SCC 170 and in Commissioner of Service Tax vs. Bhayana Builders (P) Ltd. 2018 (1) G.S.T.L. 118 (S.C.), which held that service tax is to be levied in respect of "taxable services" and that, for the purpose of arriving at 33% of the gross amount charged, the value of goods/materials cannot be added unless specifically included by the Legislature.

Patterns across these 12 rulings

Constitutional and legislative validity challenges persist. Multiple petitions — including Unising Projects (case 7) and Bharathi Constructions (case 9) — were filed directly before High Courts under Article 226 challenging either the vires of the Finance Act, 2005 amendment to Section 65(105) or the constitutional validity of a notification issued under the Finance Act, 1994. These constitutional challenges underscore the ongoing contestation over the scope of the taxable-service definition even after the GST transition.
Pre-GST disputes continue to be heard well into the 2024–2026 window. Several of the proceedings were originally filed in 2007 and 2008 — Bharathi Constructions (case 9, filed 2007), Unising Projects (case 7, filed 2008), D. Sivanandam (case 6, filed 2012), M/S Sigpack Associates (case 8, filed 2016) — and remain pending for final disposal well over a decade after initiation, illustrating the long litigation tail of the pre-GST service tax regime.
Construction, works-contract, and infrastructure services form a recurring subject matter. Cases 7, 9, and 12 all involve construction or works-contract entities disputing whether their activities fell within the taxable service categories under Section 65(105), with the Supreme Court judgments in Larsen & Toubro and Bhayana Builders serving as the reference point for valuation-related issues.
Charitable and non-profit status as a taxability defence. In case 2 (Chikmagalur Golf Club), the appellant raised its registration as a charitable trust as a ground before CESTAT, pointing to the intersection between the "Club or Association Service" category under Section 65(105) and the question of whether a charitable trust providing golf and tourism-related services falls within the charging provision.
Demand-drop orders by original adjudicating authorities generating cross-appeals. In case 11 (GHCL Ltd.), the impugned order itself dropped the service tax demand and dropped interest and penalty proceedings, yet the matter proceeded to CESTAT, illustrating that department-side or cross-appeals on dropped demands constitute a distinct category of Section 65(105) litigation.

How to use this compilation

This index is designed as a first-level research tool. Each case entry provides the bench, date, sections engaged, and a brief note drawn from the publicly available source preview. Researchers should treat this compilation as a starting point for locating relevant proceedings and should not rely solely on the preview-based notes for any substantive conclusion. The full text of each judgment — available on indiankanoon.org or the respective court portal — must be consulted before drawing any inference about the holding, ratio, or precedential value of a ruling.

Users should also check whether any of the orders listed here have been subsequently appealed, stayed, reversed, or modified by a higher forum. Several of the High Court orders in this compilation were themselves directed against CESTAT final orders, meaning there may be a further layer of appellate history. Similarly, for matters where the constitutional validity of a provision or notification was in issue, researchers should verify whether the Supreme Court has since settled the question.

Finally, practitioners should cross-reference applicable CBIC circulars, clarifications, and trade notices that may bear on the interpretation of Section 65(105) sub-clauses relevant to their query. Tribunal and court rulings on the Finance Act, 1994 continue to be relevant for legacy audits, show cause notices, and refund claims that straddle the pre-GST period, and the regulatory context established by CBIC instructions remains part of the interpretive landscape even for proceedings decided after the GST transition.

Source

All cases listed above are drawn from the TaxNoticeAI structured legal corpus (16,101 Indian tax judgments, CBIC circulars, ITAT rulings, AAR rulings, GSTAT rulings), sourced from indiankanoon.org and official court portals.

Section 65(105) Finance Act 1994: 12 Service Tax Rulings (2024–2026)