Composite water pipeline contracts held non-taxable; refund of mistaken service tax allowed, Section 65(105)(zzzza) exclusion applied

CESTAT allowed the appeal, holding that the composite contract for construction and laying of drinking water supply pipelines for a government water authority was not taxable under Works Contract Service under Section 65(105)(zzzza) of the Finance Act, 1994, as it fell within the non-commercial, non-industrial exclusion. Consequently, there was no service tax liability. The Tribunal further held that refunds of tax paid under mistake of law were not barred by Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the limitation in the Finance Bill, 2016 was inapplicable. On unjust enrichment, it found the tax incidence was not passed on, and directed sanction of refund within one month.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Taxability of the construction of distribution systems for water supply under "Works Contract Service."
2. Applicability of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, to refund claims for service tax paid by mistake.
3. Applicability of the bar of unjust enrichment to the refund claims.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

Issue No. (a): Taxability of the Construction of Distribution Systems for Water Supply under "Works Contract Service"
The Tribunal examined whether the activity undertaken by the appellants for constructing the water distribution system for the Kerala Water Authority (KWA) falls under the taxable service category of "Works Contract Service" as defined in Section 65(105)(zzzza) of the Finance Act, 1994. It was noted that the services were non-taxable under the category of Commercial or Industrial Construction Service (CICS) before June 1, 2007. However, from June 1, 2007, the appellant started paying service tax under "works contract service" and subsequently filed for a refund when the service recipient (KWA) refused to pay the service tax.

The Tribunal referred to the Larger Bench decision in the case of Lanco Infratech Limited, which concluded that construction activities for government undertakings for non-commercial purposes, including water supply projects, are not exigible to service tax. The Tribunal held that the appellant's activities fall within the exclusionary clause of "Works Contract Service" and are not liable to service tax. This view was supported by CBEC Circular No. 116/10/2009-ST, which clarified that construction of canals and pipelines for government projects is not chargeable to service tax if used for non-commercial purposes.

Issue No. (b): Applicability of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, to Refund Claims for Service Tax Paid by Mistake
The Tribunal addressed whether the refund claims filed by the appellant are subject to the time limits prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant argued that the service tax was paid under a bona fide mistake of law, and thus, the statutory time limit should not apply. The Tribunal distinguished the case from the Madhya Pradesh High Court decision in MDP Infra (India) Pvt. Limited, where the refund claim was filed beyond the statutory time limit.

The Tribunal found that the Telangana High Court in Credible Engineering Construction Projects Limited held that when tax is paid under a mistake of law, the limitation period under Section 11B does not apply. Following this precedent, the Tribunal concluded that the refund claims are not barred by the provisions of Section 11B, as the service tax was paid by mistake.

Issue No. (c): Applicability of the Bar of Unjust Enrichment to the Refund Claims
The Tribunal examined whether the refund claims are affected by the principle of unjust enrichment. The appellant presented a letter from the service recipient (Tokyo Engineering Consultants Co., Ltd.) stating that the service rendered was not taxable, and hence, the service recipient refused to pay the service tax. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant bore the service tax cost themselves and did not pass it on to the service recipient, thereby overcoming the bar of unjust enrichment.

Conclusion
The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant on all issues:
1. The construction of the water distribution system for KWA is not taxable under "Works Contract Service."
2. The refund claims are not barred by the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
3. The refund claims are not affected by the bar of unjust enrichment.

The Tribunal directed the adjudicating authority to sanction the refund claims to the appellants within one month from the date of receipt of the order. The appeals were disposed of accordingly.

---