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

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