2025 (11) TMI 1022 - AT - Service Tax

Appellant liable for service tax on community centre construction for prescribed charges; s.77 and s.78 penalties sustained; appeal partly allowed

M/s Anubhavi Constructions Versus Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Meerut-I

CESTAT-All. (AT) held the appellant liable for service tax on construction of a community centre provided to the public for prescribed charges, upholding ... Levy of service tax - Erection, Commission & Installation Service - Business Auxiliary Services - GTA Services - Construction Services other than residential complex, including commercial/industrial building or civil structures - construction work of community center - levy of penalty - HELD THAT:- Commissioner (Appeals) have specifically recorded the findings that the community center constructed by the Appellant for Ghaziabad Development Authority is being used for certain prescribed charges to be recovered from the person making use of the said community center. In the case of M/s Ahluwalia Contracts (I) Ltd. [2015 (2) TMI 273 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] has held that 'there is no ambiguity that charitable organisation is not prevented from carrying out commercial activity; the only condition is that the profit so generated has to flow back into the organisation towards fulfilment of its charitable purposes. Thus, merely because the hospitals were constructed for the charitable organisations do not make the hospitals per se non-commercial. Indeed these hospitals are not non-commercial and charge the patients for the medical services.' Nothing has been placed on record by the Appellant to show that the community center was meant purely of the use of charitable purposes. On the contrary finding has been recorded that the community center was made available to public for their use against prescribed charges. In respect of the amount of Rs.1,64,469/- Appellant had claimed that the Service Tax in respect of this amount have discharged by the service recipient i.e. Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. The impugned order have recorded that there is no dispute that the Service Tax could not have been demanded twice once from the service provider and also from the service recipient. For verification of this amount as being deposited by the service recipient observation has been made that on verification of the deposit the demand shall be dropped. Nothing is available on record to show that the Department conducted any verification subsequently to find out whether Rs.1,64,469/- have been deposited or not. Nothing has been stated at the time of hearing by the Department. Levy of penalty u/s 77 - HELD THAT:- There are no merits in the submissions of the Appellant because it is the fact on record undisputedly they have not amended their ST-3 Return to add the additional services which they were providing and also they were not filing the ST-3 Return for the service which they were registered. Demand in respect of ‘Erection, Commission & Installation Service’, ‘Business Auxiliary Services’ and ‘GTA Services’ admitted and discharged by the appellant along with the interest is upheld - The demand in respect of ‘Construction Services other than residential complex, including commercial/industrial building or civil structures’ in respect of construction of community center for the Ghaziabad Development Authority is upheld - Penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 is upheld to the extent it is in excess of the amount of the service tax deposited along with interest prior to the issuance of the show cause notice - Penalty under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 is upheld. Appeal allowed in part. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether service tax is leviable on activities characterized as 'Erection, Commissioning & Installation Services', 'Business Auxiliary Services' and 'GTA Services' where the appellant admitted liability and deposited tax and interest prior to issuance of the show cause notice. 2. Whether construction of a community centre for a government development authority qualifies as 'Commercial or Industrial Construction Service' (CICS) and is therefore taxable, notwithstanding contentions of non-commercial/charitable use or sovereign/public function. 3. Whether certain listed electrical and cabling activities (e.g., laying of cables beyond distribution point, installation of street lights, installation of transformers/substations) are taxable and, if so, under which taxable heads (CICS, Erection/Commissioning/Installation, Works Contract), having regard to departmental circulars delineating scope. 4. Whether the proviso to Section 73(1) (extended limitation for fraud/collusion/willful suppression) applies so as to permit issuance of show cause notice beyond normal limitation, given the appellant's registration particulars, failure to amend ST-3 and alleged suppression. 5. Whether penalties under Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 are rightly imposable where tax was deposited (in part or in full) before issuance of show cause notice and where there was alleged wilful suppression, and whether Section 73(3) benefit (no penalty for amount paid before SCN) applies to amounts admitted and paid. 6. Whether a claimed amount of service tax allegedly paid by the service recipient should be excluded from demand to avoid double taxation, and whether verification by jurisdictional officer is required. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Levy on Erection/Commissioning/Installation, Business Auxiliary and GTA services when admitted and paid pre-SCN Legal framework: Definitions of taxable services under Section 65(105) read with notifications; Section 73 (recovery), Section 75 (interest) and Section 73(3) (no penalty for amounts paid before issuance of SCN) of the Finance Act, 1994. Precedent Treatment: The Court relied on established principle that admissions by a party obviate the need for further proof (Systems & Components principle as applied by Tribunal). Interpretation and reasoning: The appellant expressly admitted liability for erection/installation, business auxiliary and GTA services and paid tax and interest prior to issue of SCN. Record shows payment and challan particulars. Once admitted and paid before SCN, the benefit of Section 73(3) must be extended so that penalty under Section 78 should not be imposed on amounts already deposited prior to SCN; admitted position need not be proved further. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - admission and pre-SCN payment entitles taxpayer to protection from penalty on that paid amount under Section 73(3). Conclusion: Demand for these services is upheld to the extent unpaid; interest payable under Section 75 upheld; penalty under Section 78 cannot be sustained insofar as it relates to amounts paid with interest prior to SCN but may be sustained for remaining unpaid amounts. Issue 2: Taxability of construction of a community centre as CICS Legal framework: Definition of 'Commercial or Industrial Construction Service' (Section 65(25b) / 65(105) variants), CBEC clarifications and exemption jurisprudence distinguishing statutory/sovereign functions from commercial activities. Precedent Treatment: Decisions recognizing that government or public bodies' constructions may be taxable where the activity is commercial or consideration is charged (reliance on Tribunal and High Court reasoning approving taxation where fees/charges are levied and activity is not purely statutory). Interpretation and reasoning: The impugned order finds that the community centre is made available to public for prescribed charges; presence of fee/consideration and potential commercial use means the building is used/occupied/engaged primarily or at least to a substantial extent for commerce/industry. Circulars and CBEC clarifications emphasize 'used or to be used primarily' and that exemptions for sovereign duties are strictly construed; the department's guidance and case law show that charging fees converts activity into taxable service unless strict statutory function criteria are met. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where a public authority charges non-statutory consideration for use of a structure, construction falls within CICS and is taxable; strict construction of exemption applies. Conclusion: Construction of the community centre is taxable as CICS; challenge to levy on that ground is rejected absent evidence that the centre is used solely for statutory/charitable purposes without consideration. Issue 3: Classification of various electrical/cabling activities and relation to Works Contract scheme Legal framework: Circular No.123/5/2010-TRU (scope chart) and Works Contract composition rules (Notification No.32/2007-ST and Circular No.128/10/2010) including exercise of option and effect of rescission of composition notification. Precedent Treatment: The departmental circular sets out which activities are taxable under which head; composition scheme requires prior option and is inapplicable where its conditions are unmet or later rescinded. Interpretation and reasoning: Activities resulting in emergence of installed/erected plant/equipment (installation of transformers/substations, street lights, electrical appliances) fall under Erection/Commissioning/Installation. Laying cables beyond distribution point falls under CICS. Works Contract relief required prior option before payment and cannot be applied retrospectively; rescission further restricts applicability. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - classification must follow statutory definition and Board circular; composition option requirements are mandatory and failure to exercise them precludes composition benefits. Conclusion: The activity classifications in the impugned order align with the circular; works contract composition was not available to appellant (conditions not satisfied); taxability upheld as per classifications. Issue 4: Applicability of extended limitation (proviso to Section 73(1)) for recovery beyond normal period Legal framework: Section 73 limitation provisions and proviso permitting recovery within five years where tax not levied/paid because of fraud, collusion, wilful mis-statement, suppression of facts or contravention with intent to evade. Precedent Treatment: Proviso applied where deliberate suppression and non-disclosure to department is established; mere omission without mala fides is insufficient. Interpretation and reasoning: Appellant was registered only for construction services, failed to add other taxable services to ST-3, did not file half-yearly ST-3 returns for services actually provided, and admitted receipt of payments for such services over several years. These facts demonstrate willful suppression and intent to evade, rendering proviso applicable and permitting extended period action. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - wilful suppression of receipt of taxable services and failure to amend returns justifies invocation of extended limitation under proviso to Section 73(1). Conclusion: Extended limitation applies; SCN within extended period is valid. Issue 5: Imposition of penalties under Sections 77 and 78 and interaction with amounts paid pre-SCN Legal framework: Sections 77, 78 penalties and Section 73(3) protecting amounts paid before SCN from penalty. Precedent Treatment: Penalties proper where there is culpable suppression; Section 73(3) beneficial where tax paid before SCN. Interpretation and reasoning: Appellant's conduct supports imposition of penalties for amounts not paid before SCN due to willful suppression. However, for amounts of tax and interest admitted and deposited prior to SCN, Section 73(3) shields the appellant from penalty under Section 78 in respect of those amounts. Section 77 penalty for failure to amend returns and non-filing of ST-3 is sustained given factual omissions. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - penalty sustainable for unpaid/undeclared amounts where suppression proved; not sustainable for pre-SCN paid amounts protected by Section 73(3). Conclusion: Penalty under Section 78 upheld except to extent relating to amounts admitted and paid with interest prior to SCN; penalty under Section 77 upheld. Issue 6: Claim of service tax paid by service recipient and requirement of verification Legal framework: Principle against double taxation; departmental verification procedures. Interpretation and reasoning: If the service recipient has discharged the tax legally, duplicate demand on provider would be unjustified. The adjudicating authority directed verification by jurisdictional officer; no record of verification on file. Proper verification is required before maintaining demand. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - demand for tax must be adjusted where verified evidence shows recipient has paid tax; verification by competent officer is necessary. Conclusion: Amount of Rs.1,64,469 claimed as paid by recipient should be dropped subject to verification by jurisdictional Dy./Assistant Commissioner; demand to that extent must await such verification.