TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Car race track denied service tax exemption under Notification 17/2005 as it lacks public accessibility required for road construction services</h1> <h3>M/s. Paramount Infraventures Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Service Tax – Delhi II</h3> M/s. Paramount Infraventures Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Service Tax – Delhi II - TMI Issues involved: The issues involved in the judgment are the liability of the appellant for service tax on construction services provided, the invocation of the extended period for tax recovery, and the applicability of Notification No. 17/2005 for exemption from service tax.Liability for Service Tax: The officers of DGCEI, Delhi Zonal Unit, New Delhi conducted investigations on M/s Paramount Infraventures Pvt., Ltd. for allegedly not discharging their service tax liability for construction services provided for F-1 Race Track. Show Cause Notice was issued proposing recovery of service tax amounting to Rs.2,24,29,175/- for the period November, 2005 to March, 2012. The appellant challenged the notice, claiming exemption under Notification No. 17/2005 for specific construction works. The appellant argued that the services provided were for public welfare and not commercial, hence not taxable under Section 65(105)(zzzza).Invocation of Extended Period: The appellant contested the invocation of the extended period for tax recovery, stating that they had completed the work before the F-1 Race event in October, 2011. They claimed to have a bona fide belief that no service tax was applicable on the work related to the event. The appellant argued that there was no suppression with intent to evade tax, and hence, the extended period was wrongly invoked.Applicability of Notification No. 17/2005: The appellant relied on Entry No. 13 of Notification No. 17/2005 dated 07.06.2005 for exemption from service tax. The notification exempts services provided for the construction of roads for public use. The Tribunal analyzed the definition of 'public place' and concluded that the race track constructed by the appellant, while meeting the definition of a road, did not provide public access as a matter of right. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the appellant wrongly availed the exemption under the said notification.Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the order, dismissing the appeal. It was determined that the appellant had wrongly claimed the benefit of Notification No. 17/2005, leading to a clear case of misrepresentation. The extended period for tax recovery was deemed rightly invoked, and the demand was upheld. The decision was based on the findings of the adjudicating authority and the application of relevant legal principles.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
