Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  The GSTN has issued an Advisory dated 21.04.2026 about the introduction of an Offline Tool for the Invoice Management System (IMS)  *  CBIC extends due dates for filing of FORM GSTR 3B  for the month of April 2026 *  Interest cannot be imposed in adjudication order, if not demanded/quantified in show cause notice : Allahabad HC *  Wheelchairs with toileting facility eligible for exemption: CESTAT affirms customs duty exemption to importer *  Industries urge GST council to allow inverted duty refunds on input services *  Tamil Nadu GST dept introduced virtual hearing facility for GST appeals under under section 107 of the TNGST act: detailed guidelines  *  CIC urges authorities to implement GST evasion complaint tracking system *  Even if the assessee opts "NO" for personal hearing in form DRC-06 ,The mandatory requirement under section 75(4) to grant opportunity of hearing cannot be waived:Gujarat High Court  *  Glufosinate imports curbs imposed by govt *  Government extends Re-import period for exported cut & polished diamonds *  CIC flags lack of tracking system for tax evasion complaints,urges GST authorities to improve transparency *  No Custodial Interrogation needed in GST fraud case based on documentary evidence already in Department's Possession : Chattisgarh HC *  Orders under section cannot be sustained if passed without considering the taxpayer's objections and without granting a personal hearing:Gujarat High Court *  Mere cancellation of supplier's registration cannot,by itself,justify denial of ITC or cancellation of the recipient's registration:Bombay High Court *  High Court sets aside GST notice citing factual errors and natural justice violations *  Provisional Bank Attachment under Section. 110 of Customs Act Unsustainable Beyond Statutory period without Extension order: Bombay HC orders to defreeze accounts *  Post Clearance MRP Alteration by Distributor Does not attract Differential Customs Duty: CESTAT *  DGFT Expands scope of 'Screws' classification under RoDTEP Scheme  *  E-way bills surze to all time high of 140.6 million in March *  GST Exemption Allowed on Pure Labour Services for Standalone Houses: AAR  *  GST Payable Only on Margin in Second-Hand Car Sales, Subject to Strict Conditions and No ITC Claim: AAR *  DGFT rolls out procedure for allocation of calcined coke *  GST portal update : Pre-deposit amount now editable in Appeals *  J&K HC declared TMT scrap a 'Specified Good' eligibile for GST refunds under Support Scheme  *  Pigmy agents are employees of banks; no GST can be levied on commission  paid to them : Karnataka HC *  DGFT Revises HS Code Description for Screws Under RoDTEP *  GST Registration Cancellation Invalid Without Proper Service of Notice: Allahabad High Court. *  Bengaluru CGST | GST Backlog Appeals Deadline Fixed at June 30, 2026 *  No Time Bar on Refund of Service Tax for Services Not Rendered: CESTAT  Remands Indiabulls Case for Unjust Enrichment Check. *  Supreme Court Holds Renewable Energy Incentive Must Benefit Generators, Not Be Adjusted in Tariff
Subject News *   Delhi HC Quashes Order, Says Reminder Cannot Validate Improperly Served GST SCN *  KARNATAKA HIGH COURT REMANDS GST SHORTFALL MATTER DUE TO ABSENCE OF PERSONAL HEARING   *  CESTAT cancels confiscation and penalties on imported computer cabinet cases: Custom duty restricted to 111 surplus units *  Deposit of tax during search or investigation cannot be treated as 'Voluntary Payment' : Bombay High Court *  Section 76 of the CGST cannot be invoked where the tax has already been duly deposited, even if through another registration of the same entity: Madras High Court *  Sec 74 allows use of material regardless of source; illegality or flaws in section 67 search do not vitiate valid adjudication: HC *  Inter-State transfer of ITC on Amalgamation permissible as given under section 18(3) read with rule 41 of the CGST rules, 2017: Gujarat High Court *  HC: No GST on commisson paid to Pigmy Agents *  IGST refund denial on illegible bill of lading invalid absent chance to furnish docs; merit reconsideration in appeals directed: HC *  ITC is not admissible on GST paid on leasehold rights of land used fpr setting up an air seperation plant: AAAR,Tamil Nadu *  GST: No penalty under Section 74 after voluntary ITC reversal due to non-existent supplier : High Court *  TN AAAR denies GST ITC on Land Lease under Sec. 17(5)(d) for setting up plant and machinery *  GST proceedings quashed as notices sent to old address, despite updated address in registration *  Importer Can’t Be Penalised for Alleged IGCR Procedural Lapses Without Evidence of Departmental Error: CESTAT *  Structured Healthcare Training Not ‘Charitable Activity’, 18% GST Payable: AAR  *  CESTAT As The Appellate Authority For Central Sales Tax Disputes: A Paradigm Shift Under Finance Act, 2023 *   Rs. 25K Cost Imposed On SGST Joint Commissioner for Attaching Bank  Accounts Without Forming Mandatory “Opinion”: Bombay HC *   Ex-Parte GST Order Without Hearing Violates Natural Justice: Karnataka  High Court Quashes Adjudication and Bank Attachment.  *   Retrospective GST Cancellation Can’t Invalidate Genuine Transactions:  Jaipur Commissioner (Appeals) Quashes Rs. 95,670 ITC Demand. *   GST Pre-Deposit Non-Compliance: Allahabad High Court Allows Appeal  Subject to Rs. 30 Lakh Balance Deposit, Recognises Offline Filing. *  Documentary Nature of Evidence: Allahabad High Court Grants Bail in Rs. 32.66 Crore Fake ITC Fraud Case *  Supreme Court Flags Systemic Bias in Army’s Permanent Commission Process for Women Officers *  Re-Determination of Land Compensation Can Be Based on Appellate Court Awards, Clarifies Scope of S. 28-A: Supreme Court. *  Supreme Court Imposes Rs. 5 Lakh Costs On Rent Authority Officer For Acting Beyond Jurisdiction. *  DGGI Meerut | Court Denies Bail to Accused in Claiming Fake ITC And Export Refunds *  Denial of GST Rate Revision Benefit to Contractor Violates Article 14: Rajasthan HC *  GST Registration Cancellation for Non-Filing of Returns: Gauhati High Court Directs Restoration on Compliance. *   Supreme Court Quashes FEMA Adjudication Orders, Revives Proceedings at  Show Cause Stage. *   Higher Rank, Harsher Punishment Justified: Supreme Court Restores Dismissal  of Bank Manager in Misappropriation Case. *   Limitation for Export Refund to Be Counted from Foreign Exchange Realisation,  Not From Export Invoices Issuance: CESTAT  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/Case Laws/2012-13/1435

Civil, electrical, inte¬rior and miscellaneous work fall under ‘completion & Finishing services’ of Commercial & Industrial Construction Services.


Case:- COMMISSIONER OF S.T., NEW DELHI Versus FANKAAR INTERIORS PVT. LTD.
 
CITATION:- 2012 (28) S.T.R. 270 (Tri. – Del.)

Brief Facts:-As per facts on record, the respondents filed an application for refund of on the ground that the said amount sands wrongly deposited by them as Service Tax under the impression that the said activities undertaken by them amounts to providing construction services. However, subsequently, they were advised that the activities carried out by them does not amount to construction services inasmuch as they were carrying out the various works as per drawings and blue print supplied to them by the architects and interior decorators appointed by their clients directly. They were issued a SCN proposing to deny the refund claim on the ground that the services undertaken by them correctly fall under the category of construction services as per Section 65(30a) which existed during the period from 10-9-2004 to 16-6-2004. The adjudicating authority after hearing the respondents, rejected their refund claim on the above ground. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the original adjudicating authority, the respondents filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The adjudicating authority set aside the order of the original adjudicating author­ity and allowed the appeal. Hence, the present appeal.
 
Appellant Contentions:-Revenue's contention is that amendment effec­tive from the 16-6-2005 has only defined services more specifically and it is not correct to infer that the services were not taxable prior to 16-6-2005. It is their contention that even after the amendment in the said section, the activities which are admittedly completion and finishing services would still be taxable under clause 'b' of Section 65(30a) as it existed prior to 16-6-2005.
 
Respondent Contentions:- The appellant submitted that for the sake of easy reference, the definition as it existed prior to 16-6-2005 and after 16-6-2005 are being reproduced below
"Construction service" means,-
(a)                          construction of new building or civil structure or a part thereof; or
(b)                         repair, alteration or restoration of, or similar services in relation to, building or civil structure, 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 road, airport, railway, transport terminal, bridge, tunnel, long distance pipeline and dam - Section 65(30a)."
 
After 16-6-2005
"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' - Section 65(25b)"
 
As is clear from the above, the definition of construction services was amended along with the new heading clause 'c' so introduced with effect from 16-6-2005 relate to the completion and finishing services. If the Revenue's stand that such services were covered by the earlier definition is accepted, the newly introduced clause 'c' would become redundant as in that case, there is no need to introduce the said clause. As such, we find full favour with the reasoning adopted by Commissioner (Appeals).
 
 
Reasoning of Judgment:-The Tribunal has considered the submissions. Respondent were engaged in the execution of interior, civil, electrical and miscellaneous work as per the work contract placed upon them by to M/s. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. The activities involve site preparation, civil works, carpentry, supply of loose furniture and other miscellaneous job such as laying of floor tiles, PVC pipes, power and lighting wiring, telephone wiring, fire alarm system wiring, music system wiring etc. By referring to the definition of Construction services as appearing in Section 65(30a) of the Finance Act, and by referring to the Commercial and industrial construc­tion services appearing in Section 65(25b) after 16-6-2005, it is observed that the activities undertaken by the respondents were the services contained in the defi­nition under newly introduced clause 'c' of Section 65(25b) of the Act with effect from 16-6-2005 and not clause 'b' of Section 65(30a) as it existed prior to 16-6-2005. For better appreciation of the arguments adopted by the Commissioner (Appeals), we reproduce the relevant paragraph from the impugned order:
 
"It is evident from the insertion of clause 'c' in the Section ibid, w.e.f. 16-6-2005 that the services which are alike to that undertaken by the appellants were not covered by the clause (b) prior to 16-6-2005 as said services were inserted in newly named 'Commercial and Industrial Construction Service' as per Section 65(25b) only w.e.f. 16-6-2005. The above changes in the statu­tory provisions have also been clarified by the department vide letter F. No. V/DGST/22/AUDIT/ MISC/1/2004, dated 16-2-2005 that scope of con­struction services has been enlarged by introduction w.e.f. 16-6-2005 and scope of "Commercial or Industrial Construction Service" was expanded w.e.f. 16-6-2005 so as to include completion and finishing services. l find that some of the jobs undertaken by the appellants such as floor and wall tiling, wood and metal joinery and carpentry, acoustic applications or fittings find specific mention in the clause (c) of the Section 65(25b) which came into effect from 16-6-2005 and never existed in the old Section 65(304 which come into effect from 16-6-2005 and never existed in the old Section 65(30a) covering 'Construction services' prior to 16-6-2005. In other words such activities undertaken by the appellants can be considered for taxability under the Section 65(25b) by virtue of clause ‘c’ w.e.f. 16-6-2005 only and not prior to 16-6-2005 under clause ‘b’ of the Section 65(30a) under “repair, alteration or restoration” as such services did not liable for service tax for this reason alone during the relevant period. I further find that the adjudicating authority has conceded that the some of the works undertaken by the appellants while executing the aforesaid contracts were of a kind of "renovation" of the ex­isting buildings of the client. I find that even if the some of the jobs under­taken by the appellants are considered as "renovation", the services cannot be covered under the 'Construction Services' as per Section 65(30a) prior to 16-6-2005 as the service of 'renovation' has also been inserted in the clause (d) of the Section 65(25b) covered newly named 'Commercial and Industrial Construction Service' only w.e.f. 16-6-2005 and never existed in the Section 65(30a). In view of the above I hold that the services undertaken by them appellants as per taxable contracts with M/s. ICICI Prudential Life Insur­ance Co. Ltd. were not taxable under the category 'Construction Services" as per Section 65(30a) during the relevant period."
 
It was also noted that the Tribunal in the case of Spandrel v. CCE, Hyderabad as reported in 2010 (20) S.T.R. 129 (Tri.-Bang.) has held that the finish­ing services like False ceiling, partitions, flooring, modular system, painting, car­peting, wall panelling and interior decorator services having been brought to the commercial or industrial services from 16-6-2005 are not covered by the defini­tion for the earlier period. As such, Tribunal is of the view that the Revenue has no case on merits. The appeal is liable to be rejected. The same is accordingly, re­jected.
 
Decision:- Revenue appeal rejected.
 
Comment:- The substance of this case is that when clause (c) regarding completion and finishing services was introduced w.e.f. 16.06.2005 in the Construction or Industrial Construction Services, it cannot be held to be liable to service tax prior to this period under any other head of the same service as this would render the introduction of such clause irrelevant.
 
 

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