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 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