2025 (3) TMI 378 - AT - Service Tax

Contractor's service tax exemption claim rejected for power utility services under Notification 25/2012-ST

M/s MKS. Enterprises Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Allahabad (Vice-Versa)

CESTAT Allahabad upheld service tax demand for 2010-14 period against contractor providing services to power utility clients. Tribunal rejected exemption ... Short payment of service tax for the period 2010-11 to 2013-14 - correct quantification of service tax demand in the Show Cause Notice - suppression of material facts with the intent to evade payment of service tax - Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The said license is for the appellant to act as a contractor for providing services to various clients of the PVVNL and UPPCL. The clients of PVVNL an d UPPCL are neither any government organization or local government authority. Thus the services provided by the appellant to these service recipients cannot be said to be provided by to government organization or local authority to be eligible for the exemption under Notification no 25/2012-ST as claimed by the appellant. On perusal of the order in the case of M/s Arvindra Electricals [2018 (9) TMI 86 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH] which is relied earlier for holding that the services provided by the appellant are “work contract service”, it is found that while granting the benefit of exemption under this notification, the bench was not seized with the matter wherein the service recipients were other than government organizations or local authority. As such on this ground this order of Chandigarh Bench is distinguishable. While keeping the demand higher granted the benefit that was available to the appellant with regards to 50% liability to be discharged by the appellant and 50% by the service recipient on reverse charge basis, has been granted and demand has been restricted only to 50% of the amount, there are merits in the said findings recorded by the adjudicated authority. Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- It is a fact on record that even after repeated inquiries appellant failed to provide the requisite details what was called for. They were also not registered, nor were filing service tax returns, during the relevant period it is only on the basis of enquiry and investigation made that case of none payment of service tax has been made out by way of none declaration and separation of facts. Accordingly, extended period of limitation for making this demand has been rightly invoked. Conclusion - The services provided as part of a works contract are taxable unless exempted by specific notifications. The applicability of the reverse charge mechanism post-01.07.2012, holding service providers liable for 50% of the tax is emphasized. There are no merits in the appeal of appellant and the same is dismissed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered in this judgment include:(i) Whether the appellant short-paid service tax for the period 2010-11 to 2013-14, and if the service tax demand was correctly quantified in the Show Cause Notice.(ii) Whether the appellant suppressed material facts with the intent to evade payment of service tax, justifying the invocation of the extended period of limitation under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994.(iii) Whether penalties under Sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, were justifiably imposed on the appellant for contraventions of various provisions of the Act.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS(i) Short Payment of Service Tax and Correct QuantificationLegal Framework and Precedents: The relevant provisions include Section 65(105)(zzg) and Section 65B(44) of the Finance Act, 1994, which define taxable services and works contract services. Precedents include decisions in cases like M/s Noida Power Co. Ltd. and M/s Kedar Constructions, which provided clarity on exemptions related to services in the electricity sector.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal examined whether the services provided by the appellant fell under 'management, maintenance or repair service' or 'works contract service.' It was determined that the services provided by the appellant to UPPCL and PVVNL were works contract services, particularly after 01.07.2012, when the negative list and mega exemption scheme were introduced.Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal considered the nature of contracts executed by the appellant, which involved erection and maintenance of electric poles and lines. The appellant's claim that services were exempt under notifications was evaluated against the statutory definitions and exemptions.Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the statutory definitions to classify the services as works contract services. It also considered the applicability of partial reverse charge mechanism post-01.07.2012, holding the appellant liable for 50% of the service tax.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The appellant argued for exemption under various notifications, which the Tribunal found inapplicable post-01.07.2012, as the nature of services did not fall under exempted categories.Conclusions: The Tribunal upheld the demand for service tax for the period post-01.07.2012, concluding that the appellant was liable for 50% of the service tax under the reverse charge mechanism.(ii) Suppression of Facts and Invocation of Extended PeriodLegal Framework and Precedents: Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994, allows for the extended period of limitation in cases of suppression of facts. The Tribunal referred to past cases to interpret the applicability of this provision.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to declare accurate information in their ST-3 returns and did not cooperate with the department's inquiries. This non-disclosure was deemed deliberate, justifying the invocation of the extended period.Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal noted discrepancies between the appellant's financial records and service tax returns, which were only revealed through departmental investigations.Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the provision for the extended period, concluding that the appellant's actions constituted suppression of facts with intent to evade tax.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The appellant's defense of non-liability due to exemption was not accepted, given the lack of transparency and non-compliance with statutory requirements.Conclusions: The Tribunal confirmed the demand for service tax under the extended period, citing deliberate suppression of facts by the appellant.(iii) Imposition of PenaltiesLegal Framework and Precedents: Sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, provide for penalties for various contraventions, including failure to register, file returns, and pay tax.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal found that the appellant's failure to register, file returns, and pay service tax warranted penalties under the cited sections. The Tribunal referenced past decisions to support the imposition of penalties.Key Evidence and Findings: The appellant's non-compliance with statutory provisions was evident from the investigation, and the Tribunal found no mitigating circumstances to waive penalties.Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the statutory penalty provisions, emphasizing the appellant's non-cooperation and non-disclosure.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The appellant's arguments against penalties were dismissed, as the Tribunal found clear evidence of contraventions.Conclusions: The Tribunal upheld the imposition of penalties, finding them justified given the appellant's conduct.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSThe Tribunal established the principle that services provided as part of a works contract are taxable unless exempted by specific notifications. It emphasized the applicability of the reverse charge mechanism post-01.07.2012, holding service providers liable for 50% of the tax.Core Principles Established: The judgment reinforced the principle that exemptions must be clearly applicable, and non-disclosure of material facts justifies the invocation of the extended period for tax recovery.Final Determinations on Each Issue: The Tribunal confirmed the service tax demand for the period post-01.07.2012, upheld the invocation of the extended period, and justified the imposition of penalties under Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.