TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal rules in favor of appellant on service tax liability for infrastructure projects</h1> <h3>Bhoorathnom Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax Hyderabad-I</h3> Bhoorathnom Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax Hyderabad-I - TMI Issues:1. Whether the appellant is liable to pay service tax for works contract service.2. Whether the appellant is liable to pay service tax for GTA service.3. Whether the requirement of pre-deposit of balance dues can be waived.Analysis:1. The appellant, engaged in construction of infrastructure projects for State Governments, was subjected to a confirmed demand for service tax amounting to Rs. 29,79,61,129/- for providing works contract service. The appellant argued that construction of pipelines for irrigation, when not for commerce or industry, is not taxable. Citing precedents, the appellant contended that the project nature and execution determine tax liability. The Tribunal observed that in cases where pipelines were constructed for non-commercial purposes, tax liability was not established. The Tribunal emphasized that contracts should be analyzed holistically, not just by terms used, to prevent tax avoidance. Relying on favorable decisions, the Tribunal waived the pre-deposit requirement for the balance dues.2. Regarding the demand under GTA service, an additional amount of Rs. 34,63,237/- was imposed on the appellant. The appellant had already deposited Rs. 30,00,000/- and requested the waiver of the remaining amount due to strong merits on limitation grounds. The Tribunal found the deposited amount insufficient for the appeal hearing but granted a waiver of the balance dues contingent on the appellant depositing Rs. 5,00,000/- within 8 weeks.3. The Tribunal, after considering arguments from both sides and relevant case laws, directed the appellant to comply with the deposit requirement of Rs. 5,00,000/- within a specified timeline. Upon compliance, the pre-deposit of balance dues was waived, and a stay against recovery was granted. The decision was pronounced in open court on a specified date.This judgment clarifies the tax liability of the appellant for works contract service and GTA service, emphasizing the importance of project nature and contract analysis in determining tax obligations. The Tribunal's decision to waive the pre-deposit requirement showcases a balanced approach considering legal precedents and the specific circumstances of the case.
TaxTMI 