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/2012-13/1394

Whether the Railways, being part of the Ministry of Railways not liable to pay service tax?

Case: CENTRAL RAILWAY V/S COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NAGPUR
 
Citation: 2013-TIOL-75-CESTAT-MUM

Brief Facts: - The appellant, Central Railway undertook maintenance and repairs of Railway sidings owned by private parties under agreements entered into with such owners. The revenue was of the view that the activities undertaken by the Railways comes under the taxable service of "management, maintenance and repair services" as defined under section 65(105)(zzq) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with section 65(64) ibid with effect from 16/06/2005. Therefore, two show cause notices, one dated 13/10/2010 demanding service tax for the period 2005-06 to 2007-08 and another dated 03/05/2011 for the period 2010-11 were issued demanding Service tax of Rs. 2.51 crores approximately and Rs.74.22 lakhs approximately. The notices also proposed demand of interest on the service tax demanded and imposition of penalties. Notices were adjudicated vide the impugned order and the demands were confirmed along with interest thereon. Equivalent amount of penalties were also imposed under section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 apart from penalties under sections 77 and 76 and also fees for non-filing returns levied under rule 7C of Service Tax Rules, 1994. By aggrieving these order, the appellants filed the present appeals.

Appellant’s Contention: - The appellant contended that Railways are a Government undertaking, being part of the Ministry of Railways and hence, they are not liable to any service tax. Secondly, they have not even recovered the cost of rendering the service, hence, they are not liable to pay any service tax. Thirdly, the they submits that vide notification no. 54/2010-ST dated 21/12/2010 which amended notification 24/2009-ST dated 27/07/2009, exemption is available in respect of management, maintenance or repairs of Railways also and therefore for the period 21/12/2010 onwards, they are not liable to pay any service tax. To support their contention, they relies on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation vs. CCE, Nashik dated 12/07/2012 reported in = (2012-TIOL-1290-CESTAT-MUM) wherein it was held that Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation being a public authority, the activities performed by them are not taxable under the Finance Act, 1994 and accordingly, stay has been granted against the dues adjudged in the said case. Therefore, in the instant case also stay is to be granted.

Respondent’s Contention: - The respondent argued that for the levy of service tax, it is immaterial whether the service provider is a Government undertaking or not and the levy applies equally to both Government undertakings as also non-Government undertakings. Therefore, in the absence of any specific exemption notification exempting the activities undertaken in respect of maintenance, management or repairs of Railways sidings, the appellant is liable to pay service tax.
 
Reasoning of Judgment: - The Hon’ble Tribunal held that under section 65(64) as per "Management, maintenance or repair" means any service provided by:
(i) Any person under a contract or an agreement; or
(ii) A manufacturer or any person authorised by him, in relation to, -
     (a) Management of properties, whether immovable or not;
     (b) Maintenance or repair of properties, whether immovable or not; or
     (c) Maintenance or repair including reconditioning or restoration or servicing of any goods, excluding a motor vehicle.
Further, as per section 65(105)(zzg) taxable services rendered to any person by any person in relation to management, maintenance or repair is leviable to service tax. Prior to 01.05.2006, the taxable service was defined as any service rendered to a customer by any person in relation to management, maintenance or repair. In the instant case, the appellant has entered into contracts with various private Railway sidings owners for the maintenance and repairs of Railway sidings and, therefore, the activity undertaken by the appellant would come within the purview of management, maintenance or repair service and hence, they are rightly liable to pay service tax. Reliance placed by the appellant on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Maharashtraindustrial Development Corporation cited supra is of no help to the appellant. In that case, the said corporation was collecting a fee fixed by the Government of Maharashtra under the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961. In other words, what was collected by the said corporation was a statutory fee. It is in the facts of that case, this Tribunal granted interim stay on the ground that the activities performed by a public authority under the provisions of law are not taxable as per the clarification given by the CBEC in Circular no. 89/7/2006 dated 18/12/2006. In the present case, the Railways are not collecting any statutory fee but are collecting service charges for the services rendered and, therefore, the said decision does not appear to be applicable to the facts of the present case. There is also no financial hardship pleaded by the appellant. In this view, they held that the appellant has not made out a prima facie case for complete waiver of dues adjudged against them and accordingly, they direct the appellant to make a pre-deposit of 50% of the service tax adjudged against them within a period of eight weeks and report compliance by 11/02/2013. On such compliance being reported, the balance of service tax, interest and penalties adjudged against the appellant shall stand waived and recovery thereof stayed during the pendency of the appeals.

Decision: - Pre-deposit ordered.

Comment:-The analogy drawn from this case is that service tax is not leviable on the statutory functions performed by the government departments. 

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