Mandi construction exemptions: road work qualified as public use, but auction platforms and related works remained taxable

Construction of a covering over an auction platform at a Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti was not exempt under Notification No. 25/2012-ST because the platform remained part of commercial auction activity; the demand was upheld. Roads within the mandi were treated as roads meant for use by the general public, so the exemption applied and the demand was set aside for that service. Works relating to covering of auction platforms, boundary walls, check posts and the approach road up to the gate were not covered by the exemption for post-harvest storage infrastructure, as market structures are not storage infrastructure; the demand was upheld. Non-registration, non-filing of returns and non-payment supported suppression, so the extended period and penalties were justified.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether construction of a covering over the existing auction platform of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti was exempt under Notification No. 25/2012-ST; (ii) whether construction of roads within the mandi was exempt as roads meant for use by the general public; (iii) whether the works relating to covering of auction platforms, boundary walls, check posts and approach road up to gate were covered by the exemption for post-harvest storage infrastructure; and (iv) whether the extended period of limitation and penalties were justified.

Issue (i): Whether construction of a covering over the existing auction platform of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti was exempt under Notification No. 25/2012-ST.

Analysis: The exemption for works meant predominantly for use other than commerce, industry or business was not attracted because an auction platform in a mandi is inherently meant for commercial auction activity. A covering over such a platform does not change its commercial character.

Conclusion: The exemption was not available and the demand on this service was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether construction of roads within the mandi was exempt as roads meant for use by the general public.

Analysis: The roads were inside a mandi used by farmers, traders and other members of the public, and were not private roads in private premises. Roads within such a public mandi answered the description of roads meant for use by the general public.

Conclusion: The exemption applied and the demand on this service was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the works relating to covering of auction platforms, boundary walls, check posts and approach road up to gate were covered by the exemption for post-harvest storage infrastructure.

Analysis: Market structures used for trade cannot be treated as post-harvest storage infrastructure. Temporary storage of goods in a market does not convert the market into a storage facility, and the notification was directed to storage infrastructure, not market infrastructure.

Conclusion: The exemption was not available and the demand on these constructions was upheld.

Issue (iv): Whether the extended period of limitation and penalties were justified.

Analysis: The assessee had not obtained registration, filed returns, or paid tax during the relevant period, and the non-payment continued until departmental investigation commenced. These facts supported suppression and intent to evade, justifying invocation of the extended period and consequential penalty.

Conclusion: The extended period and penalties were justified.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the extent of the road-construction service, while the remaining demand and corresponding penalty were sustained, and the matter was sent back only for recomputation.

---