Charitable hospital construction and SEZ-linked GTA services were partly exempt, while limitation restricted part of the transport demand.

Construction of a hospital run by a charitable trust was held not to be commercial or industrial construction, as health-related construction for non-profit use falls outside that taxable category, and the demand on that count was set aside. GTA service used for construction in a Special Economic Zone was treated as exempt because it was used for authorised operations, and that demand was also set aside. For GTA service linked to hospital construction, the demand survived in part: the first notice was within the extended period, but the second notice could not extend limitation for the earlier period once the department was already aware of the activity. Penalty was upheld only to the extent of the surviving demand.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether construction service in relation to a hospital run by a charitable trust is liable to service tax as commercial or industrial construction; (ii) Whether GTA service used for construction of a building in a Special Economic Zone is exempt from service tax; (iii) Whether GTA service used in connection with construction of a hospital is liable to service tax and whether the extended period of limitation applies; (iv) Whether penalty is sustainable in relation to the surviving demand.

Issue (i): Whether construction service in relation to a hospital run by a charitable trust is liable to service tax as commercial or industrial construction.

Analysis: Taxability depends on whether the building is used or intended to be used for commerce or industry. Board circulars clarified that constructions for educational, religious, charitable, health, sanitation, or philanthropic purposes, where not aimed at profit, are non-commercial in nature. The hospital in question was run by a charitable organisation and the construction was for use as a hospital rather than for commercial exploitation.

Conclusion: The construction of the hospital did not fall within commercial or industrial construction and the demand on this count was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether GTA service used for construction of a building in a Special Economic Zone is exempt from service tax.

Analysis: Exemption under the Special Economic Zones Act extends to taxable services provided to a Developer or Unit for carrying on authorised operations in the Special Economic Zone. The GTA service was found to have been used for construction of a building in the SEZ for authorised operations. The service was therefore covered by the statutory exemption, and the availability of CENVAT credit also supported the revenue-neutral character of the transaction.

Conclusion: The GTA service used for construction in the SEZ was exempt and the demand was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether GTA service used in connection with construction of a hospital is liable to service tax and whether the extended period of limitation applies.

Analysis: Even though the underlying hospital construction was treated as non-taxable, the GTA service was used by the assessee in its own capacity as service recipient/deemed service provider and was integral to the construction activity. On limitation, the first notice was held to be within the extended period because the transaction was not disclosed in the returns, but the second notice could not invoke the extended period for the earlier portion once the department was already aware of the activity. Accordingly, only part of the demand survived as time barred for the earlier period under the second notice.

Conclusion: The GTA demand relating to the hospital was sustained in part, with the earlier portion under the second notice held time-barred; this issue was decided partly against the assessee and partly in its favour.

Issue (iv): Whether penalty is sustainable in relation to the surviving demand.

Analysis: Since a portion of the GTA demand relating to the hospital survived, penalty was maintained to the extent of the sustainable demand.

Conclusion: Penalty was upheld to the extent of the surviving demand and was thus partly against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded on the hospital construction demand and the SEZ-linked GTA demand, but failed in part on the GTA demand connected with the hospital and the corresponding penalty, resulting in a partial modification of the impugned order.

Ratio Decidendi: Constructions for bona fide charitable or health purposes outside commerce or industry are not taxable as commercial or industrial construction, services used for authorised operations in an SEZ are exempt, and once the department is aware of the activity the extended period cannot be invoked again for the same facts in a subsequent notice.

---