TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (11) TMI 156
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1994 as also Rs.10,000/- each under Sec 77(1) & Sec 77(2) of the Finance Act, 1994. The period of dispute is 2016-17. 2. The Original Authority had adjudicated upon the SCN No.27/2020-21 dated 08.07.2020, involving the demand of service tax of Rs.76,14,505/-, in respect of receipt of Works Contract Service received by APMSIDC during the period 2014-15 to June, 2017. After analyzing the 7 contracts involved during the period, wherein, they have received the services of Works Contract service (WCS) from one M/s Satya Sai Constructions, a proprietor/ partnership firm, he came to the conclusion that the nature of the service is that of WCS. He has, however, considered the availability of Notification No.25/2012-ST as amended by Notification N....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as entrusted by the State Government to Corporation; That they are not a business entity and are working with an objective of no profit and no loss. Thus, even though they are a "corporate entity", they are not a business entity. Therefore, they are not liable to pay service tax as a service recipient under RCM in terms of Notification 30/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012. 4. Heard the parties and perused the records. 5. The Original Adjudicating Authority has discussed in detail the status of M/s APMSIDC and came to the conclusion, based on the documents furnished by APMSIDC, that as per Sec 18 of the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001, the registration of a society shall render it a "body corporate" having perpetual succession and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ey are challenging is that they are merely an implementing agency and not the service recipient. 7. The perusal of the records would indicate that the work order has been placed by them on M/s Satya Sai Constructions and the services have clearly been rendered to them only. Therefore, this ground would not sustain. As regards there not coming within the ambit of RCM under Notification No.30/2012-ST, it is obvious that they are body corporate. The relevant statutory provisions under Notification No.30/2012-ST - provides that when taxable service by way of service portion in execution of works contract is provided by, inter alia, partnership firm to a "business entity" registered as body corporate, both service provider and service recipient....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of drugs and equipments on behalf of the Government, which is not the case in the present Appeal, where the issue is provision of WCS. 9. Further, on going through submissions, I find that Department has not been able to adduce, except to one example discussed supra, to support that APMSIDC is a business entity. It is also an admitted position that they are "Governmental authority", though in terms of Notification No.25/2012-ST as well as in terms of relevant documents perused by the Adjudicating Authority. A holistic view would indicate that even though they might be considered as body corporate, they cannot be considered as business entity, which intrinsically involves profit motive. The collection of processing charges or a cost markup ....