Construction company liable for service tax on garden management services under Finance Act.

The appellant, engaged in construction activities, contested a show cause notice alleging liability to pay service tax. The CESTAT confirmed liability for managing and maintaining gardens under Section 65(64) of the Finance Act, despite the appellant's argument that garden management should not be considered maintenance or repair services. The Court upheld the CESTAT's decision, dismissing the appeal as no substantial question of law arose from the interpretation of relevant provisions.

---

---

Issues:
Whether the levy of service tax pursuant to the show cause notice was justifiedRs.

The appellant, engaged in construction activities, contested a show cause notice alleging liability to pay service tax for the period 2008-09 to 2010-11. The appellant disputed the liability citing Section 65(64) of the Finance Act, 1994. The Commissioner confirmed the show cause notice and imposed a penalty. The appellant appealed to the CESTAT, which granted relief for certain activities and the extended period, but confirmed the liability for landscape management activities. The appellant disagreed with the CESTAT's findings, arguing that managing gardens should not be considered maintenance or repair services. The CESTAT found the activities fell under Section 65(64) of the Finance Act, making the appellant liable for tax on managing and maintaining gardens. The appellant relied on the proviso to Section 65(24b) of the Finance Act, 1994, and judgments of the Supreme Court to support its position.

The demands were based on the construction of Section 65(64) of the Finance Act, defining "management, maintenance or repair" services. The appellant relied on Section 65(24b) of the Finance Act, defining "cleaning activity," arguing that the exclusion of services related to agriculture and horticulture under this section should apply to Section 65(64) as well. The appellant failed to provide authority or statutory construction principles supporting this interpretation. The Court held that such an interpretation was unfounded, and the concurrent findings did not warrant interference. No substantial question of law arose, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

---