Works contract classification prevails where survey and map making is only incidental, and extended limitation fails without suppression.

Survey and map making activity undertaken for Government projects relating to roads, railways and dams was treated as incidental to a composite works contract, not as a separately taxable service. Because the work formed part of infrastructure-related works contract activity and could not be artificially split into a distinct service heading, the assessee's classification was upheld. The extended limitation period was also unavailable since the assessee maintained regular records and filed returns, with no suppression of facts, collusion or wilful misconduct shown. The tax demand for the extended period was therefore barred by limitation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the activity undertaken by the respondent was classifiable as survey and map making service or as works contract service. (ii) Whether the demand for the extended period was barred by limitation in the absence of suppression of facts or misconduct.

Issue (i): Whether the activity undertaken by the respondent was classifiable as survey and map making service or as works contract service.

Analysis: The respondent carried out work for Government departments in relation to roads, railways and dams. The activity of survey and map making was found to be incidental to a larger composite works contract. The definition of works contract excluded such work in relation to roads, railways and dams, and the activity could not be artificially split and taxed under a separate service heading.

Conclusion: The activity was held to be works contract service and not taxable separately as survey and map making service, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand for the extended period was barred by limitation in the absence of suppression of facts or misconduct.

Analysis: The respondent had maintained regular records and filed returns in the ordinary course of business. On the record, there was no suppression, collusion, or wilful misconduct, so the conditions for invoking the extended period were not satisfied.

Conclusion: The demand for the extended period was held to be barred by limitation, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The classification adopted by the assessee was upheld and the tax demand could not survive for the extended period, resulting in rejection of the Revenue's challenge.

Ratio Decidendi: Where survey and map making is only incidental to a composite works contract involving excluded infrastructure work, it is not taxable as a separate service, and the extended limitation period cannot be invoked without suppression or wilful misconduct.

---