Sub-contractor denied service tax exemption under Clauses 12, 12A of N/N 25/2012-ST for tourist huts

The Tribunal held that the assessee, a sub-contractor providing works contract services to governmental undertakings for construction of huts and similar structures used for renting to tourists, was not entitled to exemption under Clauses 12 and 12A of N/N. 25/2012-ST. The works were predominantly commercial in nature and thus fell outside the scope of the exemption meant for non-commercial use. Applying strict interpretation of exemption notifications, the burden on the assessee to establish eligibility was not discharged. Relying on the Larger Bench decision in Melange Developers, the Tribunal further held that a sub-contractor is independently liable to service tax, irrespective of tax paid by the main contractor. The impugned order was affirmed and the appeal dismissed.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1.1 Whether works contract services rendered for construction of tourism-related accommodation facilities qualify for exemption under Clause 12 and Clause 12A of Notification No. 25/2012-ST.

1.2 Whether a sub-contractor is liable to pay service tax on works contract services when the principal contractor is a government agency or has discharged service tax on the same activity.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Exemption under Notification No. 25/2012-ST (Clause 12 and 12A) for works contract services relating to tourism projects

Legal framework

2.1 The Court considered Clause 12 of Notification No. 25/2012-ST, granting exemption to services provided to the Government, a local authority or a governmental authority by way of construction, erection, commissioning, installation, completion, fitting out, repair, maintenance, renovation, or alteration of a civil structure or other original works "meant predominantly for use other than for commerce, industry, or any other business or profession".

2.2 The Court noted that sub-clause (a) of Clause 12 was omitted with effect from 1.4.2015 vide Notification No. 6/2015-ST, and that exemption was subsequently restored in a limited form by insertion of Clause 12A vide Notification No. 9/2016-ST, for contracts entered prior to 1.3.2015, with applicable stamp duty paid before that date, with continuation of exemption up to 31.03.2020.

Interpretation and reasoning

2.3 The Court examined whether the works undertaken by the appellant - construction of single bedroom huts, double bedroom huts, and eco log huts for GMVN/KMVN/UK Pey Jal Nigam under projects of the Uttarakhand Tourism Development Board - were "meant predominantly for use other than for commerce, industry, or any other business or profession".

2.4 It was found that the constructed huts were intended to be rented out to tourists, and that such renting activity was of a commercial nature.

2.5 The Court held that, as per the wording of Clause 12 and Clause 12A, the critical test is the end-use of the civil structure or original works; if the use is commercial, the exemption is not available.

2.6 The Court applied the settled principle that exemption notifications must be construed strictly and that the burden lies on the assessee to demonstrate that its case falls squarely within the exemption.

2.7 On this basis, the Court agreed with the findings of the authorities below that the services in question did not satisfy the requirement of being meant predominantly for non-commercial use and therefore fell outside the scope of the exemption.

Conclusions

2.8 Works contract services rendered for construction of huts/log huts to be rented out to tourists do not qualify as being "meant predominantly for use other than for commerce, industry, or any other business or profession".

2.9 The appellant is not entitled to exemption under Clause 12 or Clause 12A of Notification No. 25/2012-ST in respect of the said works contract services.

Issue 2: Service tax liability of a sub-contractor where principal contractor is a government agency or has discharged tax

Legal framework

2.10 The Court considered the appellant's contention that, being a sub-contractor to GMVN/KMVN/UPRNN (government or government-related entities), the ultimate service tax liability rested with the principal contractor.

2.11 The Court relied on the Larger Bench decision in "Melange Developers Private Ltd.", which held that a sub-contractor is independently liable to pay service tax on taxable services provided by it, even if the main contractor has discharged service tax on the overall activity.

Interpretation and reasoning

2.12 Applying the ratio of the Larger Bench, the Court held that the status of the appellant as a sub-contractor does not absolve it from its own service tax liability on taxable services provided by it under the works contracts.

2.13 The Court rejected the plea that liability shifts entirely to the principal contractor merely because the principal is a government agency or has been awarded the main work by a governmental authority.

Conclusions

2.14 A sub-contractor providing taxable works contract services is liable to pay service tax on its own portion of services, irrespective of the principal contractor's status or tax payments.

2.15 The appellant, as a sub-contractor, remains liable to pay service tax on the impugned works contract services and cannot shift the liability to GMVN/KMVN/UPRNN or other principals.

2.16 On both issues, the Court found no infirmity in the order confirming the demand of service tax (with interest and penalties), and the appeal was dismissed.

---