Service tax upheld on works contract for market committee; Krishi Upaj Mandi not Government authority under Notif. 25/2012-ST

CESTAT (All.) dismissed the appeal, upholding demand of service tax on works contract services rendered to a statutory market committee. The Tribunal held that exemption under Sl. No. 12(e) and 13(a) of Notif. No. 25/2012-ST was inapplicable. The recipient, a Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti constituted under State law, did not qualify as "Government authority" within the meaning of the notification read with Art. 243W and the Twelfth Schedule, as its activities were not municipal functions. Further, exemption for construction of roads applies only to roads for use by the general public; the roads constructed were internal roads not for public use. Tax liability and consequential demands were sustained.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1.1 Whether the services provided to a Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti / Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad during FY 2016-17 were exempt from service tax under Sl. No. 12(e) and 13(a) of Notification No. 25/2012-ST.

1.2 Whether a Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti qualifies as a "governmental authority" within the meaning of Notification No. 25/2012-ST (as amended) read with Article 243W and the Twelfth Schedule to the Constitution.

1.3 Whether construction of roads within a mandi premises, not accessible to the general public, qualifies for exemption under Sl. No. 13(a) of Notification No. 25/2012-ST as "a road ... for use by general public".

1.4 What principles of interpretation apply to exemption notifications in fiscal statutes, and on whom lies the burden to establish eligibility to exemption.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1 & 2: Exemption for services to Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti / "Governmental Authority" status

Legal framework (as discussed)

2.1 The Court considered Sl. No. 12(e) of Notification No. 25/2012-ST, which exempts specified services "provided to the Government, a local authority or a governmental authority" by way of construction, etc., of pipeline, conduit or plant for water supply, water treatment, or sewerage treatment or disposal.

2.2 Clause 2(s) of Notification No. 25/2012-ST, as originally issued and as amended by Notification No. 02/2014-ST dated 30.06.2014, defining "governmental authority," was reproduced. As amended, it reads in substance that "governmental authority" means an authority, board or body:

(i) set up by an Act of Parliament or State Legislature, or established by Government,

(ii) with 90% or more participation by way of equity or control,

(iii) to carry out any function entrusted to a municipality under Article 243W of the Constitution.

2.3 Article 243W of the Constitution and the Twelfth Schedule (listing municipal functions) were set out in full to examine whether the activities of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti fall within any such functions.

2.4 The Court referred extensively to the Supreme Court decision in Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, which distinguished between mandatory statutory functions and non-statutory/commercial activities for purposes of levy of service tax, and to later decisions following it, including on the strict scope of exemptions.

2.5 The Court also relied on the Constitution Bench decision in Dilip Kumar & Company on strict interpretation of exemption notifications and the burden on the assessee to prove applicability.

Interpretation and reasoning

2.6 The Court accepted that a Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti is a statutory authority constituted under a State Act and may undertake certain commercial activities. However, for that body to qualify as a "governmental authority" under Notification No. 25/2012-ST, all the following cumulative conditions must be satisfied:

- It must be set up by an Act of Parliament/State Legislature or established by Government;

- It must have 90% or more participation by way of equity or control by Government; and

- It must be set up to carry out any function entrusted to a municipality under Article 243W.

2.7 After reproducing Article 243W and the entire Twelfth Schedule, the Court found itself "not in position to conclude" that the activities undertaken by Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti fall under any of the functions enumerated therein. Accordingly, even though the body is constituted under a State Act, it does not satisfy the requirement of being established to carry out municipal functions under Article 243W.

2.8 In light of the Supreme Court ruling in Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, the Court emphasized that statutory bodies performing non-mandatory or commercial activities are not, by that fact alone, exempt from service tax; only activities strictly falling within the scope of the exemption (mandatory statutory functions, statutory fees, etc.) can qualify.

2.9 Applying the ratio of Dilip Kumar & Company, the Court held that exemption notifications must be strictly construed and no addition or expansion of the language is permissible. The assessee must strictly prove that it falls within the exemption; in case of ambiguity, the benefit goes to the Revenue and not to the assessee.

2.10 On facts, the impugned order had already examined the specific works contract services and concluded that exemption under Sl. Nos. 12(e) and 13(a) was not available. The Court found no material to dislodge that finding and no basis to extend the definition of "governmental authority" to the Mandi Samiti/Parishad.

Conclusions

2.11 Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti / Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad does not qualify as a "governmental authority" under Notification No. 25/2012-ST as amended, read with Article 243W and the Twelfth Schedule.

2.12 The services in question provided to the said body do not fall within the exemption at Sl. No. 12(e) of Notification No. 25/2012-ST.

2.13 The assessee failed to discharge the burden of proving eligibility to exemption; strict interpretation leads to denial of claimed exemption on these services.

Issue 3: Exemption for roads not used by "general public" under Sl. No. 13(a)

Legal framework (as discussed)

3.1 Sl. No. 13(a) of Notification No. 25/2012-ST exempts services provided by way of construction, etc., of "a road, bridge, tunnel, or terminal for road transportation for use by general public."

3.2 The Court considered the factual finding in the impugned order that the roads constructed by the assessee were within the gated boundary of the mandi premises and not for general public use.

3.3 The Court relied on the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in Warsi Buildcon, which interpreted Sl. No. 13(a) and the concept of "for use by general public," and noted the CBEC Master Circular (D.O.F. No. 334/1/2012-TRU dated 16.03.2012) clarifying that only roads for general public use are exempt; roads in factories or residential complexes are taxable.

Interpretation and reasoning

3.4 The impugned order recorded a clear factual finding that the roads were constructed "within the gated boundary wall of Mandi Sthal and are not used by general public." The Court noted that nothing contrary to this finding was on record.

3.5 Following Warsi Buildcon, the Court endorsed the distinction between:

- Roads, bridges, tunnels or terminals forming part of common infrastructure for use by the general public; and

- Roads constructed within specific premises (e.g., townships, residential complexes, or similar private/limited-access areas) for use of occupants or a limited class of users, which are not for "general public."

3.6 The definition of "general public" as a body of people at large with a public or impersonal character supports restricting the exemption to truly public-use infrastructure. Construction of internal roads for limited or restricted users cannot be treated as being "for use by general public" within the meaning of Sl. No. 13(a).

3.7 Applying strict interpretation of exemption provisions, the Court held that the utility criterion-general public versus limited/private users-is decisive, and there is no scope to expand the exemption to internal mandi roads.

Conclusions

3.8 Roads constructed within the gated mandi premises, not meant for and not used by the general public, do not qualify for exemption under Sl. No. 13(a) of Notification No. 25/2012-ST.

3.9 The service tax demand on construction of such roads is valid; exemption under Sl. No. 13(a) is not available.

Issue 4: Principles governing interpretation of exemption notifications and their application

Legal framework (as discussed)

4.1 The Court referred in detail to the Supreme Court decisions in:

- Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, emphasizing that exemption circulars and notifications must be read as per their plain language, distinguishing statutory functions from discretionary/commercial activities;

- Dilip Kumar & Company, which laid down that exemption notifications are to be strictly construed, the burden is on the assessee, and ambiguity in exemption provisions is resolved in favour of the Revenue.

4.2 The Court also noted subsequent judicial affirmations (including Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd. and other Supreme Court and High Court decisions) that:

- Exemption notifications cannot be liberally construed;

- Conditions in the notification must be strictly fulfilled; and

- Activities of statutory bodies are taxable unless demonstrably and strictly covered by the exemption.

Interpretation and reasoning

4.3 The Court applied these principles to hold:

- The language of Notification No. 25/2012-ST and its definition of "governmental authority" cannot be expanded by implication or equitable considerations;

- The distinction between statutory/mandatory functions and discretionary/commercial activities is crucial; discretionary or revenue-earning activities of statutory bodies are not automatically exempt;

- Placement of certain activities of market committees in the negative list from 01.07.2012, as noted in the Supreme Court judgment, supports the view that earlier circulars did not grant broad exemptions.

4.4 The Court rejected any argument that general public character or public purpose of the body, by itself, suffices to claim exemption; the precise conditions of the notification must be demonstrably met.

Conclusions

4.5 Exemption notifications in service tax law must be applied strictly according to their text; equitable or purposive enlargement is impermissible where the language is clear.

4.6 The assessee bears the burden to prove that its services and the recipient fall squarely within the exemption conditions; failure to do so results in denial of exemption and sustenance of tax liability.

4.7 Applying these interpretative principles, the Court upheld the impugned order denying exemption under Sl. Nos. 12(e) and 13(a) of Notification No. 25/2012-ST, confirming service tax demand (with interest) and the mandatory penalty under Section 78, and dismissing the appeal.

---