Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Dept. Can’t Classify Product as Zarda Scented Tobacco After Repeatedly Approving It As Chewing Tobacco: CESTAT *  Mere Uploading Of GST Order On Portal Is Not “Valid” Service: Tripura HC *  CGST Can Proceed Even If SGST Closed Similar Case Earlier: Delhi HC *  SC upholds 28% GST on online gaming with retrospective effect. *  West Bengal Govt cuts E-way Bill Threshold limit to Rs. 50,000 for intra-state goods movement. *  Criminal Prosecution Under Central Excise Act Can’t Continue After CESTAT Sets Aside Duty Demand on Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Orders for Denial of Personal Hearing; Remands Matter Subject to 10% Deposit *  Ex Parte GST Order: Madras High Court Directs Immediate Removal of Bank/ITC Attachment Upon 25% Deposit *  J.K. Cement Receives GST Demand Order of Rs 8,02,113/- from Ahmedabad Tax Authority *  Delhi Police EOW Busts Alleged Rs. 128 Crore GST Fake Invoice Network. *  REPLY TO SCN CAN’T BE TREATED AS “EMPTY FORMALITY”: ORISSA HIGH COURT QUASHES GST DEMAND OF RS. 57.30 LAKH *  Challenge to CGST Provisions restricting ITC to Bonafide Purchasers : Allahabad HC issues notice *  CBIC Notifies Revised Customs Tariff Values for Edible Oils, Gold, Silver, Brass Scrap and Areca Nuts *  Delhi HC Orders Removal of GST Attachment After Statutory 1 Year Period Expired *  GSTAT Extends Relaxed Appeal Filing Guidelines till December 31, 2026 *  AO fails to Provide Import - Export Data from DGFT to Taxpayer for Reconciliation *  Gold, Silver Imports To Get Costlier As Govt Raises Customs Duty To 10%  *  GSTAT Enables Pre-Payment Access to Document Upload and Checklist for GST Appeal Filing *  GST Portal Restrictions Can’t Override Statute: Gujarat HC Allows Cross-State Transfer Of CGST ITC After Amalgamation *  Centre Revises HS Codes for Large Diameter Steel Pipes Used in Oil & Gas Pipelines *  Customs Duty Liability Arises On Warehouse Clearance Date: Supreme Court *  Government lifts export ban on de-oiled rice bran *  CESTAT Grants 12% Interest on Pre-Deposit for Investigation from Date of Deposit till Refund and Denies Interest on Interest. *  Government Overhauls GST Classification Framework for Non-Alcoholic Beverages; Fruit Juice Drinks, Milk-Based Beverages and Caffeinated Drinks to Attract Revised 5% and 40% GST Rates from May 1, 2026 *  India’s gross GST collections hit a record Rs 2.42 lakh crore in April, up 8.7% *  Customs clearance stalled, revenue hit over MRP dispute *  Shipping Corporation explores Middle East routes as Hormuz tensions disrupt cargo movement *  India, Kenya signs MoU for exchange of pre-arrival customs information *  No demand of Taxes under Reverse Charge if Tax Already Discharged by Service Provider under forward charge *  The India-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement, signed "once-in-a-generation" deal that eliminates tariffs on 100% of Indian exports to New Zealand
Subject News *  Consignment Sales Can’t Be Reclassified as Inter-State Sales Based on Pre-Agreement Evidence: CESTAT *  Exporter Can’t Be Denied Advance Authorization Benefit Due To ICEGATE Technical Glitch: Delhi High Court *  No GST Demand For Mere Wrong Set-Off Of IGST Credit Under CGST And SGST Heads: Kerala HC. *  Cenvat Credit Can’t Be Denied on Input Services Having Nexus With Manufacturing Activities: CESTAT *  Pending Proceedings Can’t Survive Without Saving Clause: Calcutta High Court Quashes GST Demand of Rs. 6.28 Crore After Omission of Rule 96(10) *  Madras HC Quashes GST Demands on TASMAC (Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation) Bar Licence Fee *  GST Proceedings Cannot Survive Omitted Rule Without Saving Clause: Calcutta HC *  Provisional Release Can’t Be Denied Solely On Dept. Suspicion Of Misclassification And Undervaluation Of Imported Goods: CESTAT *  Businesses Should Not Be Kept Outside GST Regime Without Due Process: Gauhati High Court *  Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Reconsideration of Contractors’ Claim for Additional GST Payment After Tax Rate Hike From 12% to 18% *  S. 108 Statements Can’t Be Sole Basis Without Following Section 138B Procedure: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Frames Key Questions on Mandatory Distribution of ITC U/s 20 CGST Act *  Filing of Annexure-B for Refund Applications involving Accumulated ITC using the offline utility in GST portal: GSTN *  No Service Tax on Parent Company’s Un-Invoiced Cost Allocations Without Actual Service or Consideration: CESTAT  *  Calcutta High Court Upholds GST Classification of Polypropylene Leno Bags as Plastic Products *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  GSTAT Issues Major Bench Allocation Framework; All Appeals to First Go Before Division Bench *  ITC Blocking Without Reasoned Order Violates Rule 86A; Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Release of Credit *  Allahabad HC Refuses Bail to CGST Superintendent In Rs. 70 Lakh Bribery Case *  S.130 Can’t Be Invoked Without Prior Tax Determination U/s 73/74: Allahabad High Court Quashes GST Confiscation Proceedings *  SC grants Bail to Rs 54cr GST case  *  Karnataka HC Sets Aside Duplicate GST Orders, Orders Fresh Hearing on GSTIN Cancellation *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  Transfer Of Unutilized ITC After Amalgamation - Supreme Court Issues Notice *  PUNJAB & HARYANA HC QUASHES GST CANCELLATION NOTICE FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE CBIC ENQUIRY REPORT *  LICENSE FEE, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CHARGES NOT INCLUDIBLE IN CUSTOMS VALUE UNLESS THEY ARE A CONDITION OF SALE: CESTAT *  DELHI HC ORDERS REMOVAL OF GST ATTACHMENT AFTER STATUTORY 1 YEAR PERIOD EXPIRED *  CUSTOMS BROKER CAN’T BE FAULTED JUST BECAUSE EXPORTER’S GST REGISTRATION WAS PREVIOUSLY CANCELLED: CESTAT   *  Supreme Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Delhi HC Ruling Holding Real Operator Behind Fake GST Firms Liable As ‘Taxable Person  *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected Merely Because DRC-07 Was Not Uploaded On Portal: Bombay High Court  

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