TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (3) TMI 671
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... service provider registered as contractor and had constructed low cost houses for the EWS against a tender floated by Haryana Housing Board. In terms of entry no. 12 of megha exemption under Notification No. 25/2012-ST dt. 20.06.2012, the services provided to the Government or a local authority or a government authority by way of construction, erection, commissioning, installation, completion, fitting out, repair, maintenance, renovation or alteration of a civil structure or any other original works meant predominantly for use other than for commerce and industry or other than business or profession were exempt from payment of service tax, but the appellant continued to pay service tax on the ground that Haryana Housing Board is neither a ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he refund claim of Rs. 39,95,377/- for the period 2015-16 as time barred. Against the said order, the appellant is before me. 3.1 The ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that as the issue whether Haryana Housing Board is a government/local authority, was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana and the same was settled by the Hon'ble High Court in the case of M/s Bharat Bhushan Gupta & Company in C.W.P. No. 12304 of 2015 wherein it has been held that the construction activity provided by the contractor to Haryana Housing Board is not liable to pay tax; therefore, the Revenue has sanctioned the refund claim for the period 2014-15 holding that as the service tax was not payable, the appellant is entitled for refund claim f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aken by the appellant was taxable and they have paid the service tax accordingly. Therefore, the time limit prescribed under Notification No. 09/2016 dt. 01.03.2016 is applicable to the facts of the case. To support his contention, he relied on the following case laws: * Essar Bulk Terminal Salaya Ltd vs UOI - 2019 (25) GSTL 521 (Guj.) * CC Import, Mumbai vs Dilip Kumar and Co. - 2018 (361) ELT 577 (SC) * Hot Spot Color Lab vs. CCE - 2019 (28) GSTL 460 (M.P.) 5. Heard the parties and considered the submissions. 6. The short issue before me is that whether the refund claim filed by the appellant for the period 2015-16 is barred by limitation or not? 6.1 The ld. A.R. has heavily relied on the decision in the case of Essar Bulk Termi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e said decision is applicable universally to all of the cases but in this case, there is no ambiguity for interpretation of the Notification. 6.3 Now, I deal with the case of Hot Spot Color Lab (supra). In that case, the service tax was paid in December 2006 on the value of material used in photography service without protest and sought refund of the same in 2009. The facts of the said case do not involve any Notification. Therefore, the facts of the said case are also not applicable to the facts of the case in hand. 7. Now I come to the issue in hand. 7.1 The sole ground taken by the appellant that as issue was whether the construction services provided by them to Haryana Housing Board are exempt or not being a government authority and ....