Service tax demand quashed on educational construction; Section 65(25b) FA 1994 excludes non-commercial schools despite circular withdrawal

The CESTAT set aside the service tax demand on the assessee's construction services rendered to educational institutions for the period 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2012. It held that, under Section 65(25b) FA 1994, "Commercial or Industrial Construction Service" covers only buildings used primarily for commerce or industry; educational buildings without a profit motive are not commercial merely because an earlier clarificatory circular was withdrawn. Circulars cannot amend or expand statutory taxability, and withdrawal of a circular does not alter the levy's scope. As the levy failed at the threshold classification stage, the entire demand and consequential penalties under Sections 77 and 78 were quashed.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1.1 Whether construction of buildings for educational institutions such as schools and colleges during 2008-2012 is taxable under "Commercial or Industrial Construction Service" on the ground that such institutions charge fees and are thereby "commercial" within the meaning of Section 65(25b) of the Finance Act, 1994.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Taxability of construction services provided to educational institutions under Commercial or Industrial Construction Service (CICS)

(a) Legal framework discussed

2.1 The Court examined the definition of "Commercial or Industrial Construction" in Section 65(25b) of the Finance Act, 1994, applicable for the period 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2012. It covers construction, completion/finishing, repair, alteration or renovation of buildings or civil structures "which is - (i) used, or to be used, primarily for; or (ii) occupied, or to be occupied, primarily with; or (iii) engaged, or to be engaged, primarily in, commerce or industry, or work intended for commerce or industry," excluding specified infrastructure like roads, airports, railways, bridges, tunnels and dams.

2.2 The Court noted Notification No. 1/2006-ST dated 01.03.2006 providing 67% abatement for CICS, but this was only incidental and not determinative of taxability on merits.

2.3 Para 13.2 of CBEC Circular No. 80/10/2004-ST dated 17.09.2004 was discussed, which clarified that construction for organisations established solely for educational, religious, charitable, health or philanthropic purposes and not for profit would be "non-commercial" and therefore not liable to service tax under CICS.

2.4 The Court considered Master Circular No. 96/7/2007-ST dated 23.08.2007 and its effect on earlier clarifications, including Circular No. 80/10/2004-ST.

2.5 The Court relied on the Supreme Court decision in CCE v. Ratan Melting & Wire Industries, 2008 (231) E.L.T. 22 (S.C.), on the binding nature and limits of circulars vis-à-vis statutory provisions, and on Queen's Educational Society v. State of Uttarakhand, (2015) 16 SCC 749, regarding when an educational institution can be treated as commercial.

2.6 The Court also took note of the Explanation inserted by the Finance Act, 2010 in the definition of "Commercial Training or Coaching Service" and considered whether it could be imported into the definition of CICS.

2.7 Judicial precedents discussed and followed included the Karnataka High Court decision in CCE (A), Bangalore v. KVR Construction, 2012 (26) S.T.R. 195 (Kar.), and Tribunal decisions in Shree Mahalakshmi & Co. and RGP Construction, holding that construction of buildings for charitable educational institutions is not taxable under CICS.

(b) Interpretation and reasoning

2.8 The Court held that taxability must flow from the statutory definition in Section 65(25b) and the charging provisions, and cannot be expanded or altered solely by circulars or their withdrawal.

2.9 It found that the impugned order wrongly treated the withdrawal of Circular No. 80/10/2004-ST by the Master Circular as itself creating taxability. Relying on Ratan Melting & Wire Industries, the Court held that circulars contrary to the statute have no legal existence and that "withdrawal of a circular does not change the scope of the levy." Therefore, the withdrawal of Circular 80/10/2004-ST could not, by itself, render the construction services taxable.

2.10 The Court rejected the adjudicating authority's reliance on the Explanation inserted in Finance Bill, 2010 for "Commercial Training or Coaching Service" to interpret CICS. It held that the Explanation was legislated only for Section 65(105)(zzc) and there was no legislative amendment extending it to Section 65(25b). Each taxable service under the Finance Act, 1994 has a distinct, self-contained definition, and importing the Explanation meant for one category into another was beyond the statute.

2.11 The Court noted that the adjudicating authority had treated educational institutions as "commercial" merely because they collect fees. Applying Queen's Educational Society, the Court held that mere collection of fees or generation of surplus does not make an educational institution commercial, so long as surplus is ploughed back into the institution and not distributed for private profit.

2.12 It observed that the Department had not recorded any finding that any surplus of the concerned educational/charitable institutions was siphoned off or distributed to trustees or individuals, nor that these institutions were profit-distributing commercial ventures. The mere assertion that fees are collected was held to be insufficient to classify their buildings as "commercial" within the meaning of Section 65(25b).

2.13 The Court endorsed Para 13.2 of CBEC Circular No. 80/10/2004-ST as correctly capturing the statutory position that construction for organisations established solely for educational, religious, charitable, health or philanthropic purposes and not for profit is non-commercial and therefore outside CICS. It also noted, with reference to prior Tribunal decisions, that the Department itself had continued to treat the circular as in force and binding.

2.14 Referring to KVR Construction and subsequent Tribunal decisions (including Shree Mahalakshmi & Co. and RGP Construction), the Court observed that there is a consistent judicial view that construction of buildings for charitable educational institutions is not liable to service tax under CICS/Works Contract Service, as such buildings are not "used primarily for commerce or industry."

2.15 On this cumulative reasoning, the Court held that the adjudicating authority's conclusion that construction for educational institutions is "commercial" lacked statutory support, was contrary to binding jurisprudence, and was based on an impermissible importation of the CTCS Explanation into CICS. It found that the levy failed "at the threshold" as the essential requirement of primary use for "commerce or industry" was not satisfied.

(c) Conclusions

2.16 The Court concluded that construction services provided by the appellant to the educational institutions during 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2012 do not fall within the ambit of "Commercial or Industrial Construction Service" under Section 65(25b) of the Finance Act, 1994.

2.17 The proposed levy of service tax of Rs. 1,20,20,608/- (with interest and penalty) on such construction services was held to be unsustainable on merits and was set aside in toto.

2.18 Having allowed the appeal on merits, the Court expressly declined to record any findings on limitation, cum tax benefit, penalties under Sections 77 and 78, or waiver under Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994.

---