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 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