https://www.taxtmi.com/css/info/rss_sitemap/rss_feed.css?v=1746094055 https://www.taxtmi.com Business/Tax/Law/GST/India/Taxation/Policies/Legal/Corporate Tax/Personal Tax/Vat Law/Legal Information/Tax Information/Legal Services/Tax Services Tax Management India. Com / MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd. All rights reserved. One stop solution for Direct Taxes and Indirect Taxes https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766883 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766883 Classification of services - construction of complex service or not - services provided by the appellant, Allahabad Development Authority (ADA) - denial of benefit of abatement - extended period of limitation. Classification of services - construction of complex service or not - services provided by the appellant, Allahabad Development Authority (ADA) - HELD THAT:- The issue involved in the present case is squarely covered by the decision of Hon ble jurisdictional Allahabad High Court in the case of GREATER NOIDA INDUSTRIAL DEV. AUTHORITY VERSUS COMMR. OF CUS., C. EX. [ 2015 (4) TMI 1231 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT ] by holding that The fee or amount collected as per the provisions of the relevant statute for performing such functions is in the nature of a compulsory levy and are deposited into the Government account. Such activities are purely in public interest and are undertaken as mandatory and statutory functions. These are not to be treated as services provided for a consideration. Therefore, such activities assigned to be performed by a sovereign/public authority under the provisions of any law, do not constitute taxable services. Any amount/fee collected in such cases are not to be treated as consideration for the purposes of levy of Service Tax. The decision of the Tribunal in case Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority [ 2014 (9) TMI 306 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] has not been agreed to by the larger bench of Tribunal in case of Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Ltd. [ 2025 (2) TMI 211 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - LB] and Larger Bench has observed settled the issue stating The value of premium or salami is exigible to service tax under renting of immovable property for the period prior to 01.07.2012 under section 65(105)(zzzz) of the Finance Act and from 01.07.2012 under section 66B of the Finance Act. The submission made by the appellant that they are not liable to pay service tax being government authority in respect of the services in dispute, is thus devoid of merits. Denial of abatement - HELD THAT:- The appellant have claimed benefit of abatement for determination of the value of taxable services provided by them which has been denied for production of sufficient documents admissibility. Denial of such abatement cannot be justified and the value of taxable services needs to be determined after allowing for abatement either under the composition scheme or on the basis of actual documents, if documents produced. The said view is in line with the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE CUSTOMS VERSUS M/S LARSEN TOUBRO LTD. AND OTHERS [ 2015 (8) TMI 749 - SUPREME COURT ] wherein following has been held that It is interesting to note that while introducing the concept of service tax on indivisible works contracts various exclusions are also made such as works contracts in respect of roads, airports, airways transport, bridges, tunnels, and dams. These infrastructure projects have been excluded and continue to be excluded presumably because they are conceived in the national interest. If learned counsel for the revenue were right, each of these excluded works contracts could be taxed under the five sub-heads of Section 65(105) contained in the Finance Act, 1994. For redetermination of value of taxable services, the matter remanded back to the Original Authority after allowing the abatement. Invocation of extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- Appellant being a development authority duly constituted by the Government under Section-4 of the Uttar Pradesh Town Planning and Development Act on 20 August 1974 by the Government s release dated 09-08-1974 to solve the complex housing problem arising out of the pressure of this growing population, cannot be imputed with intention to evade payment off service tax. Hence, there are no merits in invocation of extended period of limitation for making this demand - the demand for normal period of limitation upheld. Conclusion - i) ADA s activities are classifiable under construction of complex service and are subject to service tax. ii) The exemptions claimed by ADA were not applicable, as the services were not statutory functions. iii) There are no merits in invocation of extended period of limitation for making this demand. Matter is remanded back to the Original Authority for consideration and de-novo adjudication - Appeal allowed in part. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 03 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530