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 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