Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  GST registration cancellation without reasons amounts to ‘Economic Death’ of business: Supreme Court. *  No GST refund if appeal before GSTAT is filed late: Gujarat High Court. *  Mere upload of GST notice on portal not valid service, appeal limitation won’t start: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Taxpayer can’t be penalised for missing notices hidden under ‘Additional Notices/Orders’: Calcutta High Court allows fresh adjudication. *  State tax officer can’t issue GST SCN beyond CBIC-assigned jurisdiction: Bombay High Court stays recovery proceedings. *  Earlier 7.5% Pre-Deposit must count towards mandatory 10% for Appeal: Uttarakhand high court quashes CESTAT Order. *  Third Parties can’t challenge GST Advance Rulings merely due to financial impact: Karnataka HC *  GST SCN generated using AI tool quashed: Punjab & Haryana High Court *  Bank Attachment Quashed as Madras HC Quashes GST Order Issued Against Deceased Person *  ITC Blocking Order for Failure to Record ‘Reason to Believe’ U/R 86A Quashed: Allahabad High Court *  Govt Extends GSTAT Appeal Filing Deadline From 30 June to July 31, 2026 *  GST Demand on RWA Stayed: Allahabad High Court Questions Taxability of Electricity Distribution to Flat Owners *  CBIC Clarifies Jurisdiction After GST Registration Transfer: Earlier Proceedings Remain Valid, New Officer to Continue Action *  GST authorities’ certification not mandatory for reimbursement, but tax payment must be proven: Karnataka HC *  Contractor can’t seek gst reimbursement through writ when contract has arbitration clause: Karnataka HC *  Unsigned Order Is No Order in Law: AP HC Quashes GST Assessment Order for Want of Officer’s Signature *  Customs Can’t Levy Rs. 1.36 Crore Cost Recovery Charges Without Proof of Full-Day Officer Deployment: CESTAT  *  12% IGST Payable On Imported Dialysis Machine Parts: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Admits Challenge to GST Limitation Extension Notifications; Grants Protection Against Coercive Recovery *  Criminal Case Can’t Run Parallel to GST Proceedings on Same Facts: Allahabad High Court *  Allahabad High Court Stays GST Detention Order; Directs Release of Vehicle and Goods on Deposit of Rs. 1.44 Lakh *  Service Tax Can’t Be Levied on Loss-Making Contracts: Gujarat High Court *  GSTN Mandates Ship-to GSTIN in e-Invoice and e-Way Bill APIs; Introduces Voluntary e-Way Bill Closure Facility from August 1, 2026 *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred When Taxpayer Was Pursuing Rectification Remedy: Telangana High Court *  Absence of E-Way Bill and Transport Documents Justifies Customs Seizure U/s 110: Gauhati HC *  Madras High Court Upholds GST Late Fee and Penalty for Non-Filing of Annual Return, Dismisses Challenge  *  GST Records, Purchase Documents Sufficient to Discharge Burden Under Customs Act: CESTAT Orders Release of 3.65 Kg Gold  *  No Sugar Cess Payable on Sugar Exported Out of India: CESTAT *  Road Construction Services Exempt and SCN Time-Barred: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Based Solely on Form 26AS  *  ITC Freeze Upheld After GST Dept Find Suppliers Were Allegedly Fake Bill-Trading Entities: Madras HC 
Subject News *  Input service benefits can’t be denied: CESTAT allows export refund despite MMTC acting as Canalising agency. *  No service tax demand without proof of service of SCN: CESTAT. *  Service tax demand quashed as dept. fails to prove service of SCN: CESTAT *  GST : Mere allegation of inadequate consideration of reply not enough to invoke writ jurisdiction: Delhi High Court *  Onerous conditions imposed for provisional release of seized imported goods shouldn’t amount to virtual denial of relief: CESTAT. *  GST SCN without alleging fraud cannot invoke sec. 74: Karnataka High Court quashes adjudication order. *  Extended Limitation Can’t Be Invoked Merely on Form 26AS Data: CESTAT *  Revenue-Sharing with Restaurants Not Taxable as Business Support Service: CESTAT *  R. 6(3) Option Can’t Be Forced on Taxpayer; CESTAT Quashes Rs. 12.36 Crore CENVAT Credit Demand *  Excise Duty | Power Consumption Alone Can’t Prove Clandestine Manufacture: Karnataka High Court *  Madras High Court Examines DGGI’s Authority to Issue GST Penalty Orders Under Section 122, Adds DGGI as Party *  Proceedings under omitted r. 96(10) can’t survive without saving clause: andhra pradesh high court quashes gst refund recovery *  Excise duty power consumption alone can’t prove clandestine manufacture: karnataka high court *  Madras high court rules GST show cause notices must disclose grounds for invoking extended limitation *  Court Can’t Direct Extension GST Return Deadlines or Waive Interest and Penalties: Karnataka High Court *  GST Notifications Can’t Go Beyond GST Council Recommendations: Madras High Court Quashes SCN on Branded Pulses *  Appeal Can’t Be Dismissed for Delay When Dept’s Own Order Mis-states Limitation Period: CESTAT *  No Evidence of KYC or Due Diligence Breach By Customs Broker: CESTAT Quashes Licence Revocation in Export Overvaluation Case *  Glucometers Are Chemical Analysis Instruments Classifiable Under Tariff Heading 9027: CESTAT *  Validity of Post-GST Service Tax Proceedings Upheld: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Challenge to S. 73 SCN *  Rectified GST Refund Applications Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred If Original Refund Claim Was Filed Within Limitation: Gujarat HC *  Service Tax Refund Can’t Be Denied as Time-Barred When Levy Itself Is Unconstitutional: Gujarat High Court *  Same Officer Can’t Act As Auditor & Adjudicator: Karnataka High Court *  Karnataka High Court Condones 324-Day Delay, Revives Customs Appeal in Jewellery Pilferage Case  *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Order Passed Ex Parte Despite Prior ITC Reversal; Lifts Bank Attachment *  Tobacco Process Doesn’t Amount to Manufacturing: Madras High Court Quashes Rs. 1.32 Crore Compensation Cess Demand  *  Recovery Notice Unsustainable After Voluntary Reversal of Unutilised Credit: CESTAT  *  GST | ‘System Generated’ SCN Without Officer Details Invalid: Allahabad HC  *  Electronic Records Without Statutory Certification Requirements Can’t Justify Undervaluation Allegations: CESTAT *  Madras High Court Stays GST Order, Finds Prima Facie Merit in Plea Against S. 74 Proceedings Based on S. 73 Intimation  

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