Sub-contractor entitled to service tax refund under Section 102 exemption for university construction work despite indirect service provision

CESTAT Allahabad allowed the appeal of a sub-contractor seeking service tax refund. The sub-contractor had provided services to a private company (main contractor) for construction work at University of Lucknow. Revenue rejected the refund claim arguing Section 102 exemption applies only to direct services to government/educational institutions, not to private companies. CESTAT held that since the ultimate beneficiary was University of Lucknow (an educational establishment), the exemption under Section 102 of Finance Act, 1994 applies regardless of whether services were rendered directly or through sub-contractors. The sub-contractor was entitled to refund as the service was ultimately provided to an exempt entity. The impugned order was set aside.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility for service tax exemption under Section 102 of the Finance Act, 1994.
2. Appropriateness of the refund claim filed by the sub-contractor instead of the main contractor.
3. Interpretation of the term "governmental authority" in the context of exemption notifications.

Summary:

1. Eligibility for Service Tax Exemption:
The Appellant, a sub-contractor for M/s NBCC, provided services for the construction of the ONGC Centre of Advanced Studies at the University of Lucknow. The Appellant claimed a refund of Rs. 51,38,112/- paid as service tax, arguing that the services were exempt under Section 102 of the Finance Act, 1994. This section exempts services provided to a Government, a local authority, or a Governmental Authority. The lower authorities denied the refund, stating that the exemption does not apply to services rendered to a private company like NBCC.

2. Appropriateness of the Refund Claim:
The Revenue contended that the main contractor, NBCC, should have filed the refund claim as they rendered services to the University of Lucknow. The Appellant argued that the nature of the service would not change whether provided directly by the main contractor or through a sub-contractor. The Tribunal agreed with the Appellant, stating that the exemption applies as long as the service is rendered to the ultimate client, which in this case is the University of Lucknow, an educational establishment.

3. Interpretation of "Governmental Authority":
The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Commissioner, Customs Central Excise & Service Tax, Patna vs. M/s Shapoorji Pallonji And Company Pvt. Ltd., which clarified the definition of "governmental authority" under exemption notifications. The Supreme Court held that the term should be interpreted to include entities set up by an Act of Parliament or a State Legislature, even if they do not have 90% or more government participation by way of equity or control.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal found that the Appellant's services were indeed exempt under Section 102 of the Finance Act, 1994, and the refund claim was filed within the stipulated time. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal with consequential relief, following the Supreme Court's interpretation of "governmental authority."

Order:
The appeal is allowed with consequential relief as per law. (Order pronounced in open court on 15th March, 2024).

---