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 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