Composite landscaping contracts: supplied materials excluded from taxable service value, while account mismatches were remanded for verification.

Composite landscaping contracts treated as interior decorator service cannot have the value of grass, plants, manure or pesticides added to taxable service value where the materials are actually supplied and sold as part of the work. The demand based on such material cost was therefore set aside. For the remaining receipts and cleaning service, discrepancies between balance sheet figures and ST-3 returns required reconciliation of accounts and verification of actual tax payment, so those demands were remanded for fresh determination. Penalties based on the deleted demand could not survive, and penalty exposure on the remanded items was also left open pending verification.

---

---

Issues: Whether the value of materials such as grass, plants, manure and pesticides used in landscaping work was includible in the taxable value of interior decorator service; whether the difference between the balance sheet figures and ST-3 returns for the other receipts and cleaning service could sustain the demand; and whether the penalties were maintainable.

Issue: Whether the value of materials such as grass, plants, manure and pesticides used in landscaping work was includible in the taxable value of interior decorator service.

Analysis: Landscaping activity was treated as falling within the statutory definition of interior decorator service, but the contracts showed a composite arrangement in which supply of materials formed part of the work. The settled legal position applied to the facts was that where goods and materials are actually supplied and sold in the course of providing the service, their value cannot be added to the taxable value. The materials used for landscaping were integral to the contract and the demand was founded on treating the material component as taxable service value, which was not sustainable.

Conclusion: The demand on account of inclusion of material cost in landscaping service was not sustainable and was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issue: Whether the difference between the balance sheet figures and ST-3 returns for the other receipts and cleaning service could sustain the demand.

Analysis: The remaining demands turned on reconciliation of accounts and the appellant's assertion that the books were maintained on accrual basis while service tax was paid on receipt basis. The record showed that the matter required factual verification of actual payment of service tax and proper reconciliation before the correct tax liability could be determined. The Tribunal therefore considered it appropriate to restore these items for fresh ascertainment rather than finally affirming the demand.

Conclusion: The remaining demands were remanded for verification and fresh determination.

Issue: Whether the penalties were maintainable.

Analysis: Once the primary demand relating to landscaping materials was set aside, the penalty resting on that demand could not survive. As the other components were remanded for fresh determination, the penalty liability for those items also could not be finally sustained at that stage.

Conclusion: The penalties were set aside.

Final Conclusion: The order resulted in partial relief to the assessee by deleting the demand based on the value of supplied materials, while the remaining disputed items were sent back for reconsideration and factual verification.

Ratio Decidendi: In composite service contracts, the value of goods and materials actually supplied as part of the contract cannot be included in the taxable value of the service, and unresolved factual reconciliation of accounts warrants remand for fresh determination of tax liability.

---