TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (2) TMI 1308
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t had collected and paid the service tax, which is not contested. Further, demand of Rs.1,61,81,538/- for construction services provided to Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority (VUDA), with respect to residential-cum-commercial complex, is also not contested and the Appellants have paid the tax with interest. Further, service tax of Rs.25,89,903/- was demanded under the head 'Renting of Immovable Property', which has also been paid and is not contested. 4. The Appellant/Assessee is an individual engaged in providing 'Works Contract Services' (WCS) and 'Renting of Immovable Property services' and is registered with the service tax department since 30.04.2015. The Appellant was maintaining regular books of accounts and records, and also filing returns. In the course of inquiry and investigation, it appeared to Revenue that the Appellant has short paid or not paid service tax on some of the services. The Appellant had produced the copy of records, as required by the service tax department, for the period 2012-13 to 2016-17, being copies of Form 26AS, IT returns, Balance sheets, Profit & Loss Accounts, copy of ST3 returns, copy of challans for service tax paid and soft copy of le....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....linical, or (iii) an art or cultural establishment; (d) *** (e) *** (f) *** 8. Further, 'governmental authority' has been defined in clause 2(s) of the Exemption Notification (originally) as follows: "(s) "governmental authority" means a board, or an authority or any other body established with 90% or more participation by way of equity or control by Government and set up by an Act of the Parliament or a State Legislature to carry out any function entrusted to a municipality under Article 243W of the Constitution" 9. Subsequently, the said clause 2(s) was clarified and amended (substituted) vide Notification No.02/2014-ST dated 30.01.2014 as follows: "(s) "governmental authority" means an authority or a board or any other body; i) Set up by an Act of Parliament or a State Legislature; or ii) Established by Government, With 90% or more participation by way of equity or control, to carry out any function entrusted to a municipality under Article 243W of the Constitution." 10. It is the further contention of the Appellant that - (i) APEWIDC, (ii) APMSIDC & (iii) APSPHCL are governmental authorities as the same have been set up/established by the State Governmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te Government. He further urges that in the facts and circumstances, the Appellant is eligible for exemption under Notification No.25/2012-ST S.No.12 (a) & (c) and no demand can be raised against the Appellant. 12. Further, urges that APSPHCL is a registered society under Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act created by the State Government for taking care of the housing needs of the staff of the Police department. The said corporation is fully under the control of the State Government. The Appellant have provided services to APSPHCL by way of sub-contract being WCS in respect of repair of houses meant for use of the Police staff and the said service stands exempted under clause 12(a) read with clause 29(h) of the Notification. Clause 29(h) of the said notification provides for exemption where sub-contractor has provided WCS through the main contractor and such WCS is exempt in the hands of the main contractor. Learned Counsel has relied on the ruling of the Patna High Court in the case of Shapoorji Paloonji & Company Pvt Ltd vs CC, CE & ST, Patna [2016 (42) STR 681 (Pat.)], wherein it was held that services for construction of academic block for IIT Patna set up under the IIT....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant further states that in the facts and circumstances, it is evident that Appellant has maintained proper records and was also registered with the department, and has filed ST3 returns. Hence, the invocation of extended period of limitation is bad and the Impugned Order is fit to be set aside on this score alone. 17. Opposing the Appeal, learned AR for Revenue relies on the definition of 'service' under Sec 65B inserted in the Finance Act w.e.f. 01.07.2012. Further, urges that Sec 65B(22) defines 'declared service' as - any activity carried out by a person for another person for consideration and declared as such under Sec 66E. Further Sec 65B(54) defines 'works contract service' means a contract wherein transfer of property in goods involved in the execution of such contract is leviable to tax as sale of goods and such contract is for the purpose of carrying out construction, erection, commissioning, installation, completion, fitting out, repair, maintenance, renovation, alteration of any moveable or immovable property or for carrying out any other similar activity or a part thereof in relation to such property. It is further urged that Appellant had not paid service tax for ser....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at Appellant is wrongly claiming exemption under S.No.29(h) read with S.No.12(a) & (c) of the Notification No.25/2012-ST, which provides exemption to a subcontractor providing services by way of Works Contract to another contractor providing WCS which are exempt. Learned Commissioner has found that the Appellant has provided manpower services as sub-contractor to another contractor in respect of WCS, and such manpower services are not exempt from service tax liability. Reliance is placed on the ruling of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dilip Kumar and Company & Ors [Civil Appeal No.3327 of 2007]. Further, reliance is placed on CBEC Circular No.96/2007 dated 23.08.2007, wherein it has been clarified that a sub-contractor is essentially a taxable service provider. The fact that services provided by sub-contractor are used by the main service provider for completion of his work does not in any way alter the fact of provision of taxable service by the sub-contractor. Reliance is also placed on the Larger Bench ruling of this Tribunal in Melange Developers Pvt Ltd [2020 (33) GSTL 116 (Tri-LB)]. 23. So far the Final Order in Krishi Constructions Pvt Ltd vs CST, Hyderabad (supra), ....