Educational institution construction services exempt from service tax per Board Circular dated 17.9.2004

CESTAT Chennai held that appellant was not liable to pay service tax under Commercial or Industrial Construction Services for constructing educational institution buildings. The tribunal relied on Board Circular dated 17.9.2004 clarifying that educational institutions are not commercial in nature, making construction services for such institutions exempt from service tax. Since construction services were provided to non-profit trust for educational purposes, and the circular remained in force during disputed period, the demand was unsustainable. The impugned order was set aside and appeal allowed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the appellant is liable to pay service tax for construction services provided to educational institutions under 'Commercial or Industrial Construction Services' (CICS).
2. Whether the demand for service tax is time-barred due to the invocation of the extended period of limitation.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Liability to Pay Service Tax under CICS:

The primary issue is whether the construction services provided by the appellant to educational institutions fall under the category of 'Commercial or Industrial Construction Services' (CICS) as defined under Section 65(25b) of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant argued that the construction works were for educational institutions, which are non-commercial in nature, and hence, should not attract service tax under CICS. The appellant relied on Circular No. 80/10/2004-ST dated 17.09.2004, which clarified that construction services for educational institutions are not taxable as they are non-commercial.

The Tribunal noted that the definition of CICS includes construction primarily for commerce or industry, but excludes services provided for educational, religious, charitable, health, sanitation, or philanthropic purposes. The Tribunal also referred to the case of R.R. Thulasi Builders (I) Pvt. Ltd. Vs CGST & Central Excise, Salem, where it was held that construction services for educational institutions are not taxable under CICS. The Tribunal emphasized that the Board's Circular dated 17.09.2004 had not been withdrawn and was still in force during the disputed period.

Furthermore, the Tribunal cited various precedents, including the Karnataka High Court's decision in Commissioner of C.Ex (Appeals), Bangalore Vs KVR Construction and the Tribunal's decisions in Gujarat Adani Institute of Medical Sciences Vs CCE & ST Rajkot and KMV Projects Ltd. Vs CCE & ST Hyderabad, which consistently held that construction services for educational institutions are exempt from service tax.

Based on these findings, the Tribunal concluded that the demand for service tax under CICS for the construction of educational institutions cannot be sustained.

2. Time-Barred Demand and Extended Period of Limitation:

The appellant argued that the demand for service tax is time-barred as the show cause notice was issued on 19.03.2013 for the period from October 2007 to March 2012. The appellant contended that there was no suppression of facts or intent to evade tax, as all relevant documents were provided during an audit in July 2008, and no objections were raised at that time. The appellant also claimed a bona fide belief that service tax was not payable based on the Board's circular.

The Tribunal observed that the entire figures and details for raising the demand were taken from the appellant's accounts, and the appellant had discharged service tax for other construction services. The Tribunal found that the appellant's belief that service tax was not applicable to educational institutions was bona fide and supported by the Board's circular. Moreover, the Tribunal noted that the issue was interpretational in nature with several pending litigations.

Given these circumstances, the Tribunal held that there were no grounds for invoking the extended period of limitation, and the demand was time-barred.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with consequential relief. The Tribunal held that the demand for service tax under CICS for the construction of educational institutions cannot be sustained and that the demand was time-barred due to the absence of suppression or intent to evade tax.

---