TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (11) TMI 1584
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cover tax by qualifying such expression. The impugned activity undertaken by M/s. B.G. Shirke Construction Technology Pvt. Ltd. is that of 'works contract' in pursuance of tenders invited by Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation for constructing 'Traffic and Transit Management Centre' at Shantinagar under the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM). The answer can only be one and, that too, resoundingly in the negative as the constitutional prerogative accorded to the supreme legislature is beyond the scope of encroachment by tax administration. This is abundantly clear from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax, Uttar Pradesh v. The Modi Sugar Mills Ltd. [AIR 1961 SC 1047//1961....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g with interest thereon under Section 75 of Finance Act, 1994, besides imposing penalty of like amount under Section 78 of Finance Act, 1994 leading to this appeal before us. 4. The contract was awarded to the appellant on 30th July, 2009 for a total outlay of Rs. 1,07,21,63,815, as one of the many such across the city of Benguluru, and the demand pertains to the period up to August, 2011. The project was conceived for generating built-up space of 67862 m^2 on a site area admeasuring 31862 m^2; of the constructed space, the operational area for bus handling was to be 1145 m^2, with the Corporation to occupy 10130 m^2 and the rest, admeasuring 56587 m^2, to be leased out. Learned Authorised Representative pointed out that, according ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e declining of the benefit of 'composition'. It was also contended that a substantial portion of the demand would fail on grounds of limitation. 6. The decision of the Tribunal in B.G. Shirke Construction Technology Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-III [2014 (33) S.T.R. 77 (Tri. - Mumbai)] that '6. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. 6.1 The question involved herein is whether the Sports Complex Stadium constructed for the purpose of holding games can be considered as a commercial or industrial construction, merely on the ground that the stadium is allowed to be used by the public and others later on, on payment of user charges. In our view, the Sports Stadia is a public f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rely because some amount is charged for using the Park, it cannot be said that it is a commercial or industrial construction. Adopting the same logic, the Sports Stadia in the present case is also a non-commercial construction for use by the public. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Sports Stadium constructed for conducting Commonwealth Games, is a non-commercial construction.' makes it abundantly clear that charging of rentals does not bring an activity within the purview of 'construction for commerce or industry' and, as pointed out by Learned Counsel, a similar demand sought to be fastened on M/s. Consolidated Construction Consortium Ltd., in relation to identical projects at ITPL, Whitefield and Koramangala, in the ci....