2025 (3) TMI 1349 - AT - Service Tax

Service tax demand on construction services before June 2007 ruled unsustainable following Supreme Court precedent

M/s. Balaji Constructions Versus The Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore

CESTAT Bangalore held that service tax demand on appellant registered under Construction of Residential Complex Service for October 2005 to April 2007 was ... Liability of appellant who had registered under the category of Construction of Residential Complex Service to pay service tax for the entire amount for the period from October 2005 to April 2007 - HELD THAT:- It is well settled that service tax on service component of ‘works contract’ became leviable only with effect from 01.06.2007 and demand of service tax under ‘Construction of Residential Complex’ Service is unsustainable as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of CCE, Kerala vs. L & T Ltd. [2015 (8) TMI 749 - SUPREME COURT]. The issue is no more res integra and it is well settled law that even if the appellant’s activities have been registered under ‘Construction of Residential Complex’ Service and confirming service tax demand prior to 01.06.2007 is unsustainable. Appeal allowed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe central issue in this appeal is whether the appellant, registered under the category of 'Construction of Residential Complex' Service, is liable to pay service tax for the period from October 2005 to April 2007. The appellant contends that their activities should be classified under 'works contract service,' which was not subject to service tax prior to 01.06.2007, as established by the Supreme Court in CCE, Kerala vs. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. The Tribunal also considered whether the appellant could raise additional grounds at this stage of the proceedings.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISRelevant legal framework and precedents:The legal framework centers on the classification of services for tax purposes, particularly distinguishing between 'Construction of Residential Complex' Service and 'works contract service.' The Supreme Court in CCE, Kerala vs. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. held that the latter was not subject to service tax before 01.06.2007. The Tribunal also referenced its decision in Gannon Dunkerley & Co. Ltd., which allowed the raising of additional grounds when conflicting decisions existed regarding service tax liability before the specified date.Court's interpretation and reasoning:The Tribunal considered the appellant's argument that their service should be classified under 'works contract service' and thus not liable for service tax before 01.06.2007. The Tribunal found merit in this argument, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Larsen & Toubro, which clarified that service tax on works contract services was not applicable before the specified date. The Tribunal also noted that the appellant's registration under a different category did not preclude reclassification if evidence supported such a change.Key evidence and findings:The Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's registration under 'Construction of Residential Complex' Service and the payment of service tax collected from customers. However, it emphasized that registration under a specific category does not conclusively determine the nature of the service provided. The Tribunal found that the appellant's activities were more appropriately classified under 'works contract service.'Application of law to facts:The Tribunal applied the legal principles established in Larsen & Toubro and Gannon Dunkerley to the facts of the case. It determined that the appellant's activities fell under 'works contract service,' which was not taxable before 01.06.2007. Consequently, the demand for service tax under the 'Construction of Residential Complex' Service for the relevant period was deemed unsustainable.Treatment of competing arguments:The Tribunal considered the respondent's argument that the appellant's registration and tax payments under the 'Construction of Residential Complex' Service category precluded reclassification. However, it rejected this argument, stating that the actual nature of the service provided should determine its classification, not merely the category under which the appellant was registered. The Tribunal also noted that there was no legal restriction against raising additional grounds at this stage.Conclusions:The Tribunal concluded that the appellant was not liable to pay service tax for the period from October 2005 to April 2007 under the 'Construction of Residential Complex' Service category. The Tribunal allowed the appellant to raise additional grounds and reclassified the service as 'works contract service,' exempt from service tax before 01.06.2007.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSThe Tribunal held that the appellant's activities were not subject to service tax under the 'Construction of Residential Complex' Service for the period before 01.06.2007. It emphasized that the classification of services should be based on the actual nature of the service provided, not merely on registration categories. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and confirming that the appellant's activities were more appropriately classified under 'works contract service.''It is well settled that service tax on service component of 'works contract' became leviable only with effect from 01.06.2007 and demand of service tax under 'Construction of Residential Complex' Service is unsustainable as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of CCE, Kerala vs. L & T Ltd.'The Tribunal's decision reaffirms the principle that service classification should be based on the substantive nature of the service, not merely on registration or tax payment categories, particularly in light of authoritative judicial precedents.