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 STUDY/2009-10/017
06 November 2009

 

Case Study

 

Prepared by: - CA. Pradeep Jain

Sukhvinder Kaur, LLB(FYIC)

 

Introduction: -

 

A lot of controversy is being faced in the matter of leviability of service tax on repair and maintenance of roads. The construction of roads itself is exempted from payment of service tax, so can the maintenance or repair of the roads be said to be taxable. The Board vide Circular No. 110/4/2009-ST dated 23.02.09 have clarified that maintenance, management or repair of roads are taxable services attracting service tax. Thereafter, the Government vide Notification No. 24/2009-ST, dated 27.07.09 have granted exemption to taxable service provided in relation to management, maintenance or repair of roads. However, what about the leviability of service tax on formations or improvement of roads before 27.07.09.

 

In the case under study, the appellant was contending that the service provided by him fell under the category of works contract under which it was exempted but the Revenue was contending that the activity undertaken by the appellant fell under management, maintenance or repair service and was liable to tax.

 

Relevant Legal Provisions: -

 

Rule 65 (64) of the Finance Act, 1944: - Meaning of ‘management, maintenance or repair service’

 

“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;’;]

 

Explanation.— For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that for the purposes of this clause,—

 

(a) “goods” includes computer software;

 

(b) “properties” includes information technology software;

 

Rule 65 (105) (zzzza) of the Finance Act, 1944: - Meaning of Works Contract

 

(zzzza) to any person, by any other person in relation to the execution of a works contract, excluding works contract in respect of roads, airports, railways, transport terminals, bridges, tunnels and dams.

 

Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-clause, “works contract” means a contract wherein,—

 

(i) transfer of property in goods involved in the execution of such contract is leviable to tax as sale of goods, and

 

(ii) such contract is for the purposes of carrying out,—

 

(a) erection, commissioning or installation of plant, machinery, equipment or structures, whether pre-fabricated or otherwise, installation of electrical and electronic devices, plumbing, drain laying or other installations for transport of fluids, heating, ventilation or air-conditioning including related pipe work, duct work and sheet metal work, thermal insulation, sound insulation, fire proofing or water proofing, lift and escalator, fire escape staircases or elevators; or

 

(b) construction of a new building or a civil structure or a part thereof, or of a pipeline or conduit, primarily for the purposes of commerce or industry; or

 

(c) construction of a new residential complex or a part thereof; or

 

(d) completion and finishing services, repair, alteration, renovation or restoration of, or similar services, in relation to (b) and (c); or

 

(e) turnkey projects including engineering, procurement and construction or commissioning (EPC) projects;

 

 

Govindaswamy Balraj v/s Commissioner of Central Excise

[Appeal No. ST/285/09 in ST/479/09 before CESTAT, Bangalore]

 

 

Brief Facts of the Case: -

 

Ø                   The appellant was engaged in the activity of formation or improvement/ re-asphalting of the existing roads for National Highway Authority, Public Works Department, KIADB (Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board), KUIDFC (Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development Finance Corporation), KRDCL (Karnataka Road Development Corporation Ltd.,) etc

 

Ø                   The appellant got themselves registered under the Karnataka VAT Act for performing the said activity. The Commercial Tax Department treated the activity of the appellant as works contract and tax was deducted at source.

 

Ø                   Department contended that the activity of the appellant fell under the category of “Management Maintenance or Repair services” and therefore, service tax was leviable on the same under the said category.

 

Ø                   Adjudicating Authority held in against the assessee and confirmed the demand of service tax.

 

Ø                   Appellant has reached the Tribunal against the order confirming demand. The present is an application for waiver of pre-deposit and grant of stay.

 

Question for Consideration: -

 

The question for consideration was-

 

“Whether the activity of formation or improvement/ re-asphalting of the existing roads is liable for service tax under the Category of “Management Maintenance or Repair services” or under the “Works Contract”?

 

Appellant’s Contentions: -

 

-  Appellant-assessee contended that improvement/ re-asphalting of roads will not fall under the category of “Management Maintenance or Repair services”. It was submitted that this activity is covered under the Works Contract. It has come under the service tax net from 1-6-2007. The works contract in respect of roads is excluded from the purview of the service tax net.

 

-  Reliance was placed on the judgment given in the cases of Karnataka Land Army Corpn Ltd., Vs CST Bangalore [2009-TIOL-1114- CESTAT-Bang] and Dr Lai Path Lab Pvt. Ltd., Vs CCE Ludhiana [2006 (004) STR 0526].

 

-  Attention was drawn to the definition of ‘Management, maintenance or repair service’ to contend that the activity undertaken by the appellant did not fall under the said category.

 

-  Further, it was contended that all the contracts which are entered by the appellants for the improvement/ re-asphalting are works contracts as per the registration granted by Karnataka VAT Act.

 

Respondent’s Contentions: -

 

-  Respondent-revenue contended that activity of improvement/ re-asphalting of roads was squarely covered by the definition of Management, maintenances/ repairs. It was submitted that the Adjudicating Authority had given a detailed finding to hold that these activities would fall under management, maintenance or repair services.

 

-  It is submitted that prior to 01.06.07, the said service was coverable under management, maintenance or repair services.

 

Order of the Tribunal: -

 

v                   The Tribunal found that the appellant had registered themselves with the Commercial Tax Department, for the works contract executed by them for the purpose of rendering services of improvement/ re-asphalting of the roads.

 

v                   It was seen that their activity had been assessed by the Commercial Tax Department as such and the tax was deducted at source.

 

v                   Thus, the Tribunal was of the view that these activities would get covered under the works contract, then the activity rendered prior to 01.06.2007 will not be taxable under the management, maintenance or repair services.

 

v                   The Tribunal further found that from 01.06.2007 even if the activity gets covered under the works contract, there is specific exclusion for works contracts in respect of roads.

 

v                   The Tribunal held that the appellant had made out a prima facie case for the waiver of the pre-deposit of the amount involved in respect of works contract as regards the improvement and repair of the roads.

 

Decision of the Tribunal: -

 

Pre-deposit was waived and stay granted.

 

Comments & Conclusion: -

 

The Tribunal was of the view that the activity of re- asphalting/formation or improvement of roads undertaken by the appellant would fall under the purview of works contract and not management, maintenance or repair service. The order of the Tribunal was in favour of the appellant-assessee. However, this is a prima facie view given at the stage of waiver of pre-deposit and grant of stay. The final decision is yet to be passed.

 

Thus, it was said earlier also that the construction of road does not fall under repair and maintenance of road but the Board was of this view that the construction of new road will fall under Commercial construction activity or works contract and is not leviable to tax as it is specifically excluded. But the repair of old road does not fall under it and falls under Repair and maintenance services. It is chargeable to tax and Board has come out with the specific circular also. Everyone pleaded that it is not logical also that new road is not chargeable to tax and repair of old roads will be taxed. But the board does not agree and came out with circular that what will constitute the construction of new road and what will mean repair of road. But later on the Hon’ble Finance Minister granted exemption to repair or maintenance of road. Now the tribunal has held that the repair of road will also fall under works contract and no service tax is payable before or after the introduction of levy of tax under works contract. At last, the litigation has come to an end. But hold on, it is stay order only and final decision has yet to come. It is rightly said “Litigation goes on and it never ends………”

 

 

******

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