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 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