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 Law/2013-14/1663

Whether construction of AyurvedicMedical Colleges, Engineering Colleges are leviable to service tax?

Case:-M/s IDEAL CONSTRUCTION VERSUS COMMISSSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NAGPUR

Citation:-2013-TIOL-806-CESTAT-MUM

Issue:-Whether construction of AyurvedicMedical Colleges, Engineering Colleges are leviable to service tax?

Brief Facts: The appeal and stay application are directed against Order-in-Original no. 47/ST/2012/C dated31.8.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Nagpur.The appellant M/s Ideal Constructions is registered with Service Tax department under the taxable service category of ‘Commercial or Industrial Construction Services’. During the period 2006-07 to 2010-11 they undertook construction of various buildings such as Ayurvedic Medical Colleges, Engineering Colleges and also some commercial construction such as construction of malls and residential quarters etc. Accordingly, a notice was issued vide notice dated 19.8.2011 by the department demanding Service Tax of Rs.1,65,11,409/- during the period 2006-07 and 2010-11. The same was adjudicated and the demand was confirmed alongwith interest thereon and also by imposing penalty under Sections 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Hence, the appellant is before Tribunal.
 
Appellant Contentions:- The appellant submitted that bulk of constructions they have undertaken are School buildings, Ayurvedic Medical Colleges and Engineering Colleges and so on. As regards buildings of commercial nature, they have undertaken the work as sub-contractor and the principal contractor has discharged the Service Tax liability; therefore, they are not required to pay Service Tax on the same activity. Accordingly, he pleads for stay of the impugned demands.
 
Respondent Contentions:  The Respondent submitted that there are few cases where the buildings constructed are of commercial nature, therefore, the appellant be put to terms with respect to at least those buildings which are in commercial nature.
 
 
Reasoning of Judgment:We have considered the submission from both the parties and perused the record, we find that When the ‘Commercial or Industrial Construction Services' brought into the tax net, the CBE&C issued a Circular No.80/10/2004-ST dated 17.9.2004, wherein the Board clarified as under:-
"The leviability of service tax would depend primarily upon whether the building or civil structure is ''used, or to be used'' for commerce or industry. The information about this has to be gathered from the approved plan of the building or civil construction. Such constructions which are for the use of organizations or institutions being established solely for educational, religious, charitable, health, sanitation or philanthropic purposes and not for the purposes of profit are not taxable, being non-commercial in nature. Generally, government buildings or civil constructions are used for residential, office purposes or for providing civic amenities. Thus, normally government constructions wouldnot be taxable.However, if such constructions are for commercial purposes like local government bodies getting shops constructed for letting them out, such activity would be commercial and builders would be subjected to service tax."
 
From the above circular, it is clear that educational institution, government building etc. do not come under the category of ‘Commercial or Industrial Construction services'. Therefore, prima facie services rendered in respect of educational institutions would not come within the purview of tax liability and, therefore, the demand of Service Tax, in this regard, without verifying the nature of construction as certified by the local authorities, cannot sustain in law.
 
As regards construction of commercial nature such as factory buildings, residential quarters of factories, the classification of the property has to be seen before levy of service charges. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the matter has to go back to the original adjudicating authority for consideration afresh by taking into account the approval for construction afresh by taking into account the approval for the construction given by the local authorities. The appellant is also directed to co-operate with the department and submit all the documentary evidence with regard to classification of the buildings they have constructed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order and thereafter, the adjudicating authority shall decide the matter in accordance with law after granting a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant to make their submissions.
 
Decision:- Appeal is disposed of.

Comment:-The essence of this case is that  in view of Board’s Circular No.80/10/2004-ST dated 17.9.2004, educational institution, government building etc. do not come under the category of ‘Commercial or Industrial Construction services'. Therefore, prima facie services rendered in respect of educational institutions would not come within the purview of service tax liabilityand, therefore, the demand of Service Tax in this regard without verifying the nature of construction as certified by the local authorities, cannot sustain in law.
 

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