2017 (12) TMI 1377 - AT - Service Tax

Tribunal rules in favor of appellant in Service Tax dispute, overturns Commissioner's decision

M/s. Rajendra Construction Versus C.C.E., Raipur

M/s. Rajendra Construction Versus C.C.E., Raipur - TMI Issues:1. Dispute over Service Tax liability on construction activity.2. Applicability of abatement in valuation under Notification No.1/2006-ST.3. Demand invoking extended period for tax liability.4. Classification of the contract under works contract service.5. Legal interpretation of the tax liability issue.Analysis:1. The appellant, engaged in construction activity, challenged the tax liability confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The construction was carried out under a contract with the Municipal Corporation. The Commissioner upheld the tax liability but allowed abatement in valuation as per Notification No.1/2006-ST, reducing the tax demand to Rs. 2,44,154 and waived penalties under Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994.2. The appellant contended that the demand invoking the extended period was inappropriate as they believed the work for the Municipal Corporation was not taxable. They argued that the contract involved both material supply and service provision, classifiable under works contract service taxable from 01.06.2007, citing a Supreme Court ruling. The issue was deemed a matter of legal interpretation, challenging the sustainability of the demand due to limitation and incorrect classification.3. The Appellate Tribunal considered both parties' submissions and examined the appeal records. It was noted that the tax liability was confirmed under commercial or industrial construction service from 1st April, 2007 to 31st March, 2009. Referring to the Supreme Court decision in Larsen & Toubro Ltd., it was established that tax liability for composite works contracts arises only from 01.06.2007. The Tribunal found the demand under commercial or industrial construction service unsustainable, given the appellant's bona fide belief in non-liability to service tax, leading to the rejection of the extended period demand under Section 73.4. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned order confirming service tax liability under commercial and industrial construction service invoking the extended period was legally unsustainable. The appeal was allowed on the question of limitation, ruling in favor of the appellant.This detailed analysis of the legal judgment highlights the key issues involved, the arguments presented by both parties, and the Tribunal's reasoning leading to the final decision.