Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Service tax penalty can’t survive when assessee acted on dept.’s own view of non-taxability: Delhi High Court. *  GST section 74 extended limitation questionable when form 26AS mismatch was already known: Karnataka High Court grants interim relief. *  CGST demand prima facie impermissible after state GST settlement under section 128A: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court asks GSTAT to sympathetically consider delay as taxpayers pursued remedy before wrong forum. *  Supreme Court stays Tripura High Court ruling protecting genuine buyers from ITC denial over supplier’s GST default. *  Diary entries alone can’t prove clandestine removal of goods: CESTAT quashes excise penalty on steel trader. *  Customs could investigate preferential tariff claims even before sec. 28DA: Delhi High Court. *  Customs dept. relied on fake AI generated case laws: supreme court quashes Rs. 425.28 crore penalty. *  No GST exemption in affiliation and annual registration charges for admission or conduct Of examinations: GSTAT. *  Mere invoices, cheque payments insufficient to establish genuine movement of goods: GSTAT restores Rs. 43.44 lakh ITC demand. *  Consolidated GST show cause notice covering multiple financial years is not without jurisdiction: Delhi High Court. *  Construction of independent houses on separate plots not taxable as ‘Residential Complex’ without common facilities: CESTAT. *  GST penalty exceeding statutory maximum unsustainable; Allahabad High Court quashes ? 50,000/- penalty after taxpayer filed return and paid late fee. *  GST order against standard chartered bank passed without hearing set aside by Bombay High Court. *  Retracted statements can’t be relied upon without cross-examination: CESTAT quashes gold confiscation. *  Burden to prove misclassification lies on customs department: CESTAT. *  CESTAT quashes Rs. 98 lakh excise demand on clearance of used refractory brick scrap. *  Service tax demand on irrigation works quashed: Karnataka High Court rules sale of goods component not taxable as service. *  GSTAT restores tax and penalty for transporting iron scrap without E-way bill citing intent to evade tax. *  Madras High Court stays GST recovery from directors without opportunity to show cause under section 89. *  Madras high court stays GST recovery notice against directors; finds prima facie case on applicability of section 79(1)(c). *  Procedural lapses can’t justify harsh punishment without serious customs breach: CESTAT quashes customs broker licence revocation. *  Service tax payable on land leasing and sports complex charges: CESTAT. *  Settled customs dispute can’t be reopened through Article 226 challenge to interest liability: Delhi High Court. *  Mere facilitation of customs clearance can’t establish knowledge of smuggling: Madras High Court. *  GST registration cancellation stayed: Allahabad High Court questions 99% ITC utilisation cap under rule 86B. *  Composition scheme lapses automatically on crossing Rs. 1.5 crore turnover: GSTAT. *  Gujarat High Court quashes GST cancellation orders after officer relied on non-existent AI-generated case laws. *  Importers liable for customs duty benefits availed through manipulated scrips: Delhi High Court. *  Procedural E-way bill lapse alone can’t justify penalty where genuine transaction and absence of tax evasion are established: GSTAT.
Subject News *  Documentary evidence dominates probe, further custody unwarranted: mumbai court grants bail in Rs. 22.44 crore customs duty evasion case. *  Business premises can’t remain sealed for non-participation in GST search: Allahabad High Court. *  GST pre-deposit must be refunded proportionately when taxpayer partly succeeds in appeal: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court grants 30 days to file GST appeal; keeps pre-deposit issue open due to deposit in parallel CGST proceedings. *  GST demand can’t exceed amount proposed in SCN: Allahabad High Court quashes Rs. 20.47 Crore order. *  Hundreds-of-crores GST demand and heavy 10% pre-deposit no ground to bypass statutory appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Delhi High Court refuses to entertain challenge to gold confiscation due to statutory appeal remedy and unexplained delay. *  Procedural error in customs broker licence inquiry can be rectified through remand: Delhi High Court. *  GSTR-2A mismatch alone can’t justify ITC denial without invoice-wise verification; personal hearing mandatory: GSTAT. *  GST order passed without uploading personal hearing notices violates sec. 75(4): Allahabad High Court. *  TAX EVASION - Sec. 74 GST SCN quashed for not spelling out fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression: Allahabad High Court. *  STPI’s SOFTEX certification and NoC charges taxable as business support services: CESTAT. *  Suspicion can’t replace proof: CESTAT quashes penalty in alleged gold-smuggling operation. *   Limitation runs from communication of order: Madras High Court upholds rejection of delayed GST Appeals. *  Rajasthan High Court quashes GST demand over unsigned show cause notice. *  ITC recovery upheld where supplier failed to deposit GST: Rajasthan High Court. *  Customs commissioner’s empowered to make port trust liable for duty on pilfered goods: Supreme Court. *  Rectification proceedings can’t be used to challenge an uncontested GST assessment through a writ petition: Andhra Pradesh HC. *  GST proceedings against deceased proprietor unsustainable without notice to legal heir: GSTAT. *  Mere availment of ineligible self-assessed ITC doesn’t amount to suppression without evidence of fraud or wilful misstatement: GSTAT. *  Disposal of mining overburden by entity authorised by mining lease holder constitutes taxable service: CESTAT. *  Toll plaza data not mandatory for ITC refund: GSTAT. *  Disputed GST fraud allegations require investigation: Punjab and Haryana High Court makes interim bail absolute in alleged fraud and GST fraud case. *  Non-manufacturer contractor liable to deposit excess excise duty collected from buyer: CESTAT. *  GST order can’t reject taxpayer’s reply as “not satisfactory” without reasons: Madhya Pradesh High Court. *  Uncorroborated statements can’t establish alleged diversion of duty-free goods: CESTAT. *  Erection services were not liable to service tax prior to 10th september 2004: CESTAT. *  Sec. 74 GST notice must spell out statutory ingredients for invoking extended tax demand proceedings: Allahabad High Court. *  No jurisdictional bar under section 6(2)(b) in parallel CGST SGST proceedings: Delhi High Court refuses to bypass GST appeal remedy. *  Madras High Court remits GST demand for fresh adjudication after taxpayer claims it was unaware of SCN following business closure.  

Comments

Publish Date: 31 Jul, 2009
Print   |    |  Comment

Repairing the Controversy of Service Tax on Repair of Roads

 

 

REPAIRING THE CONTROVERSY OF SERVICE TAX ON REPAIR OF ROADS

 

 

The matter of levy of service tax on maintenance of roads has passed through many controversies. No service tax is leviable on construction of roads. But what about the service tax liability on maintenance and repair of roads? Will it be chargeable to tax? This was subject to great controversy. The matter has been finally settled by the Finance Minister granting exemption to repair and maintenance of services.

 

SERVICE TAX ON SERVICES RELATING TO ROADS:

 

The construction of roads does not fall under service tax net. It is specifically excluded from the purview of ‘commercial or industrial construction service’ as well as from ‘works contract service’. The said definition of ‘commercial or industrial construction service’ under Section 65 (25b) of the Finance Act, 1994 has been reproduced hereunder for ready reference:-  

 

( 25b) "commercial or industrial construction service" means—

( a) construction of a new building or a civil structure or a part thereof; or

( b) construction of pipeline or conduit; or

( c) completion and finishing services such as glazing, plastering, painting, floor and wall tiling, wall covering and wall papering, wood and metal joinery and carpentry, fencing and railing, construction of swimming pools, acoustic applications or fittings and other similar services, in relation to building or civil structure; or

( d) repair, alteration, renovation or restoration of, or similar services in relation to, building or civil structure, pipeline or conduit, which is—

( i) used, or to be used, primarily for; or

( ii) occupied, or to be occupied, primarily with; or

( iii) engaged, or to be engaged, primarily in,

commerce or industry, or work intended for commerce or industry, but does not include such

services provided in respect of roads, airports, railways, transport terminals, bridges, tunnels

and dams;']

 

The definition of ‘Works Contract’ under Section 65 (zzzza) of the Finance Act, 1994 has been reproduced hereunder for ready reference:-  

 

(zzzza)  to any person, by any other person in relation to the execution of a works contract, excluding works contract in respect of roads, airports, railways,   transport terminals, bridges, tunnels and dams.

Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-clause, “works contract” means a contract wherein,—

(i) transfer of property in goods involved in the execution of such contract is leviable to tax as sale of goods, and

(ii) such contract is for the purposes of carrying out,—

(a)    erection, commissioning or installation of plant, machinery, equipment or  structures, whether pre-fabricated or otherwise, installation of electrical and electronic devices, plumbing, drain laying or other installations for transport of fluids, heating, ventilation or air-conditioning including related pipe work, duct work and sheet metal work, thermal insulation, sound insulation, fire proofing or water proofing, lift and escalator, fire escape staircases or elevators; or

(b) construction of a new building or a civil structure or a part thereof, or of a pipeline or conduit, primarily for the purposes of commerce or industry; or

(c) construction of a new residential complex or a part thereof; or

(d) completion and finishing services, repair, alteration, renovation or restoration of, or similar services, in relation to (b) and (c); or

(e) turnkey projects including engineering, procurement and construction or commissioning (EPC) projects;

 

CIRCULARS OF BOARD

 

However, maintenance and repair of roads was held to be taxable under the “management, maintenance and repair service” by the revenue authorities. As per the clarification given by the Board letter bearing F.No.B1/6/2005-TRU, dated 27.07.05, the tax on maintenance and repair of roads was leviable from 16.06.05. The relevant portion of the said Letter is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:-

 

16.2 Prior to 16/6/2005, such services covered maintenance or repair or servicing of any goods or equipment, excluding motor vehicles. However, since 16/6/2005, services relating to maintenance or management of immovable property (such as roads, airports, railways, buildings, parks, electrical installations and the like) have also been covered under the purview of service tax. Such services would be taxable when provided under a contract or an agreement by any person or by a manufacturer or any person authorized by a manufacturer.

 

16.4 Prior to 16/6/2005, maintenance or repair carried out under a maintenance contract or agreement was covered under service tax. Repair or servicing carried out under a contract other than a maintenance contract or agreement was not covered within the purview of service tax. Maintenance or repair, including reconditioning or restoration or servicing of any goods or equipment, except motor vehicle (which is taxable under the category of authorized service station), undertaken as part of any contract or agreement (not necessarily maintenance contract or agreement) is now liable to service tax under this category of taxable service. To attract service tax under this category, the contract or agreement need not necessarily be a maintenance contract / agreement.

 

The Board issued Circular No. 110/4/2009-ST dated 23.02.09 clarifying that maintenance and repair of roads is taxable under ‘Management, Maintenance or Repair Service’. It was also clarified as to what will constitute construction of road and will not fall under service tax net as well as what will constitute as maintenance and repair of roads and will be exigible to service tax. The said Circular is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:-

 

Circular No. 110/4/2009-ST Dated 23/2/2009

Reference from Commissioner Nashik seeking clarification in respect of levy of service tax on Repair/ renovation/ widening of roads – Regarding.-Representations have been received by the Board pointing out divergent practices being followed by field formations with regard to levy of service tax on maintenance and repair of roads.

2. Commercial or industrial construction service [section 65(105) (zzq)] specifically excludes construction or repairs of roads. However, management, maintenance or repair provided under a contract or an agreement in relation to properties, whether immovable or not, is leviable to service tax under section 65(105) (zzg) of the Finance Act, 1994. There is no specific exemption under this service for maintenance or repair of roads etc. Reading the definitions of these two taxable services in tandem leads to the conclusion that while construction of road is not a taxable service, management, maintenance or repair of roads are in the nature of taxable services, attracting service tax.

 

3. The next issue requiring resolution is the types of activities that can be called as ‘construction of road’ as against the activities which should fall under the category of maintenance or repair of roads. In this regard the technical literature on the subject indicate that the activities can be categorized as follows,-

 

(A) Maintenance or repair activities:

 

I. Resurfacing

 

II. Renovation

 

III. Strengthening

 

IV. Relaying

 

V. Filling of potholes

 

(B) Construction Activities:

 

I. Laying of a new road

 

II. Widening of narrow road to broader road (such as conversion of a two lane road to a four lane road)

 

III. Changing road surface (graveled road to metalled road/ metalled road to blacktopped/ blacktopped to concrete etc)

 

4. The cases may be decided/ revenue should be protected based on the above classification. Suitable Trade and Public notices may be issued for information of the trade and field formations.

 

5. Receipt of this Circular may please be acknowledged.

 

6. Hindi Version will follow.

 

 

F. No. 345/ 17 /2008-TRU

 

Yours faithfully,

(Unmesh Sharad Wagh)

Under Secretary (TRU)

 

The Board issued Circular No. 110/4/2009-ST dated 23.02.09 clarifying that maintenance and repair of roads is taxable under ‘Management, Maintenance or Repair Service’. It was also clarified as to what will constitute construction of road and will not fall under service tax net as well as what will constitute as maintenance and repair of roads and will be exigible to service tax. The said Circular is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:-

 

Circular No. 110/4/2009-ST Dated 23/2/2009

Reference from Commissioner Nashik seeking clarification in respect of levy of service tax on Repair/ renovation/ widening of roads – Regarding.-Representations have been received by the Board pointing out divergent practices being followed by field formations with regard to levy of service tax on maintenance and repair of roads.

2. Commercial or industrial construction service [section 65(105) (zzq)] specifically excludes construction or repairs of roads. However, management, maintenance or repair provided under a contract or an agreement in relation to properties, whether immovable or not, is leviable to service tax under section 65(105) (zzg) of the Finance Act, 1994. There is no specific exemption under this service for maintenance or repair of roads etc. Reading the definitions of these two taxable services in tandem leads to the conclusion that while construction of road is not a taxable service, management, maintenance or repair of roads are in the nature of taxable services, attracting service tax.

 

3. The next issue requiring resolution is the types of activities that can be called as ‘construction of road’ as against the activities which should fall under the category of maintenance or repair of roads. In this regard the technical literature on the subject indicate that the activities can be categorized as follows,-

 

(A) Maintenance or repair activities:

 

I. Resurfacing

 

II. Renovation

 

III. Strengthening

 

IV. Relaying

 

V. Filling of potholes

 

(B) Construction Activities:

 

I. Laying of a new road

 

II. Widening of narrow road to broader road (such as conversion of a two lane road to a four lane road)

 

III. Changing road surface (graveled road to metalled road/ metalled road to blacktopped/ blacktopped to concrete etc)

 

4. The cases may be decided/ revenue should be protected based on the above classification. Suitable Trade and Public notices may be issued for information of the trade and field formations.

 

5. Receipt of this Circular may please be acknowledged.

 

6. Hindi Version will follow.

 

 

F. No. 345/ 17 /2008-TRU

 

Yours faithfully,

(Unmesh Sharad Wagh)

Under Secretary (TRU)

*******

 

JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS

 

However, the Commissioner (Appeals), Vishakhaptnam in Appeal No. 5/2008 (V-I) S.Tax dated 16.03.09 delivered order-in-appeal no. 27/2009 (V-I) ST held that no service tax is leviable at repair of road. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that since repair service provided in respect to roads has been specifically excluded from Section 65 (25b) of the Finance Act, 1994, the same cannot be subjected to any tax. It was further held that by reading the definitions of Commercial or Industrial construction service given in Section 65 (25b) it is implied that management or maintenance of all immovable properties including roads, airports, transport terminals, railways, bridges, tunnels and dams are liable to tax but not repairs.  

 

The Commissioner (Appeals) relied upon the Board’s letter F.No.B1/6/2005-TRU, dated 27.07.05 and held that with regard to immovable property, the words maintenance or management have found place in the letter but the word ‘repair’ is conspicuously absent. Therefore, the activity of repairs carries out on roads was not exigible to service tax.

 

EXPERT’S OPINION

 

Experts in the field are of the view that there should not be any service tax on the repair or maintenance of road. It is a well settled principle that specific law prevails over the general law. Therefore, the exclusion clause under ‘Commercial or Industrial Construction services’ and under ‘Works Contract’ are specific provision which will prevail over the general provision under ‘Management, Maintenance and Repair Service’. Furthermore, the commercial construction and work construction includes not only construction of new civil structures but also repair, renovation or restoration of such civil structures. When it is included then why it is not included for roads. If the road is exempted under these categories then the repair and renovation will fall under this category only and no service tax is imposable on the same.

 

Another expert has stated that it is highly irrational to presume that there is no service tax on original construction of road but when the said road is being relayed or repaired then there is service tax leviable on the same.

 

Moreover, as the Government and Local Bodies are incharge of construction, repairing and maintaining of roads then payment of service tax by them would not benefit the Revenue in any way.

 

Thus, the controversy continued.

 

FINANCE MINISTER’S ANNOUNCEMENT:

 

The controversy came to an end when the Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee stepped up and announced in his speech on Budget on 27.07.09, exempting maintenance and repair of roads falling under the category of ‘Management, Maintenance or Repair Service’ from service tax. This exemption has been granted with immediate effect vide Notification No. 24/2004-ST dated 27.07.09.

 

The problems and controversies related to road repair were solved but the issue has not resolved completely yet.

 

REMAINING ISSUE:

 

Although by exempting repair and maintenance of roads under the category of ‘Management, Maintenance or Repair Service’ has solved the controversies. One issue still remains and will continue to create problems. The issue is regarding the applicability of exemption. The Finance Minister has granted the exemption with prospective effect from 27.07.09. This means that for the period prior to 27.07.09, service tax was leviable on road repair under ‘Management, Maintenance or Repair Service’. The Government should have granted the exemption retrospectively so that the relief would have been complete for State Governments, Local Bodies and Contractors which are involved in the construction, maintenance and repair of roads.

 

Department News


Query

 
PRADEEP JAIN, F.C.A.

Head Office : -

Address :
"SUGYAN", H - 29, SHASTRI NAGAR, JODHPUR (RAJ.) - 342003

Phone No. :
0291 - 2439496, 0291 - 3258496

Mobile No. :
09314722236

Fax No. :0291 - 2439496


Branch Office : -

Address:
1008, 10th FLOOR, SUKH SAGAR COMPLEX,
NEAR FORTUNE LANDMARK HOTEL, USMANPURA,
ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380013

Phone No. :
079-32999496, 27560043

Mobile No. :
093777659496, 09377649496

E-mail :pradeep@capradeepjain.com