TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (8) TMI 1371
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....SHAKKARWAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Bharat Bhushan Sharma, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Rajeev Ranjan, Additional Commissioner, Authorised Representative for the Respondent ORDER PER: ARCHANA WADHWA After hearing both the sides, we note that the appellant was providing construction services to M/s Bhopal Development Authority and M/s Greater Noida Development Authority. They were register....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....they contended that inasmuch as their services were being provided to Bhopal Development Authority and Grater Noida Development Authority, which are Body Corporate, the appellant is liable to pay only 50% of the demand. They further submitted that said demand stands paid by them and as such nothing survives against them. 3. The Lower Authority denied the benefit of the notification in question o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pment Authority was a body corporate constituted under Section 3 of UP Industrial Area Development Act, 1976. However, both these citation do not confirm that both these were body corporate under clause (7) of Section 2 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956). These citations only say that GNIDA was established by the Act of UP Government as body corporate and had its own rules and regulations that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te that work contract was actually enacted by the Appellant. This is a prerequisite for making such claim. The failure of the Appellant to submit such certificate/evidence to conclusively prove that they provided service to a body corporate under clause (7) of Section 2 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) has rendered their plea that they were entitled to pay only 50% of Service Tax due on the ....