TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (11) TMI 349
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....axable. 2.1 He further submits that appellant was under a bona fide belief that the term 'commercial or industrial construction service' would only cover construction of new building or civil structure for the purpose of commercial or industrial. The construction of hostel building for educational institutions cannot be considered as construction for the purpose of commercial or industrial. Hence, the term 'commercial or industrial construction service' would not cover the construction undertaken for educational institution for non-commercial purpose. This view of the appellant is also supported by the decisions of the Hon'ble Tribunal and also by the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of M/s G. Ramamoorthi Construction India Pvt. Ltd.- 2015 (40) STR 632 hence, there is no suppression of facts with intent to evade the payment of tax, therefore, the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked. He placed reliance on the following judgments:- * M/s. Harsh Construction Pvt. Ltd.- 2014 (35) STR 617 * Jyoti Sarup Mittal - 2017 (3) GSTL 478 * Era Infra Engineering Pvt. Ltd.- 2018 (19) GSTL 52 * Final order No.12227/2023 dated 06.10.2023 passed by Hon'....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d are as follows :- (A) As to whether the appellant is a business entity. (B) As to whether the services as received by appellant from CPWD, a Govt. Department is a support service. (C) As to whether the demand as confirmed is sustainable. 7. The respective findings are as follows :- (A) The term 'business entity' is defined under Section 65B(17) of the Finance Act, 1994 to mean; "Any person ordinarily carrying out any activity relating to industry, commerce or any other business or profession." The adjudicating authority below has held that the appellant is covered under 'any other business' in the said definition and as such is a business entity. But we are of the opinion that term 'any other business' has to be confined to the general meaning of any activity which is profit motivated. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Collector of Excise v. Ramdev Tobacco Co. - 1991 (51) E.L.T. 631 (S.C.) has held that when a general word in a statute follow certain specific words (which had some common characteristics and constitute a genus) and giving natural wide meaning there to leads to absurdity, the given word takes colour from the neighbouring words and is read....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....om the whole of the service tax leviable thereon under Section 66B of the said Act, namely :- xx xx xx 12. Services provided to the Government, a local authority or a governmental 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 (a) predominantly for use other than for commerce, industry, or any other business or profession; xx xx xx 2. Definitions. - For the purpose of this notification, unless the context otherwise requires, - xx xx xx (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; xx xx xx "original works" has the meaning assigned to it in Rule 2A(y) of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006; This Notification was redefined vide another Notification No. 2/2014, dated 30th January, 2014 which reads as follows :- Notification N....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n ordinary course of operations themselves. However, they have outsourced the same to someone else. In the present case, as discussed above, the appellant is carrying out the function of imparting education and the technical knowhow/consultancy but the service received from CPWD is that of construction of various civil structures. It becomes absolutely clear that the services received are not otherwise the activity of the appellant themselves. Outsourcing thereof will not bring the service received under the category of support service. Therefore, we hold that the adjudicating authority below has formed a wrong interpretation of the definition while holding the impugned services received as the support services. We accordingly are of the opinion that order to that extent is not sustainable. (C) Coming to the last point of adjudication i.e. the tax liability of the appellant, we are of the opinion that since impugned period is the post negative list period, Section 67D is relevant. This provision excludes the services provided by a Government or a local authority from the ambit of taxability. Apparently the service provider herein is a Govt. authority. The services are not taxable....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Court has passed the following order:- "3.5 Counsel for the appellant has also taken us through the finding of the first authority observing as under : 9. Result of Investigation : 9.1 Investigation conducted by DGCEL, Ahmedabad against M/s. Jatan Construction P. Ltd., Ajmer as discussed in the foregoing paras, reveals that M/s. Jatan Construction P. Ltd. has been engaged in the business of execution of civil construction projects, under works contract. During the course of the search, it was found that in the financial year 2008-09 to 2011-12. M/s. Jatan Construction P. Ltd., Ajmer was allotted the contracts for civil construction work of Hostel Building for Post Graduation Girls, at Sardar Patel National Institute of Technology at Surat and a Hospital Building at Jaipur, by M/s. NBCC, M/s. Jatan constructions carried out the above-mentioned works allotted to them under the two contracts in the time period from 2008-09 to 2011-12, after issuance of Letter of awards to them by M/s. NBCC. During the course of search conducted at the premises of M/s. Jatan Constuction P. Ltd. on 18-7-2011, it was found that M/s. Jatan Constructions P. Ltd., had not paid the applicable amount of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ken of your confirmation and acceptance in full". In this letter the contract was for construction of P.G. Hostel at SVNIT, Surat. The cost of the said project was revised vide letter, dated 12-3-2010. Similar Letter No. NBCC/GM-RBG (E&I) ESIC/Jaipur/2009/1110, dated 3-3-2009 was for contract for construction of Hospital Building including internal services, External electrical, Fire Fighting, at Jaipur. 17.4 From the above letters, it is evident that assessee made contracts for construction of above two projects with M/s. NBCC and raised running account bills to M/s. NBCC, who made payments. I find that assessee acted as per terms and conditions specified in their letter of agreement and provided specific services as required by M/s. NBCC. I find that assessee acted as sub-contractor of M/s. NBCC. 17.5 Now the question would arise as to under which service the construction activity undertaken by the assessee for two projects will be classified. Whether it is commercial and industrial construction or works contract. I find that assessee vide their letter, dated 23-8-2011, in their reply to show cause notice and during personal hearings have contested that their construction act....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rcases or elevators; or (b) Construction of new building or a civil structure or a part thereof, or of a pipeline or conduit, primarily for the purposes of commerce or industry; or - (c) Construction of a new residential complex or a part thereof; or (d) Completion and finishing services, repair, alteration, renovation or restoration of, or similar services, in relation of (d) and (e) above; or (e) Turnkey projects including engineering, procurement and construction or commissioning (EPC) projects. 4. He contended that the Tribunal has seriously committed an error in taking a view inspite of the decision of Banglore Tribunal in Ramky Infrastructure Ltd. v Commr. of Service Tax, Hyderabad, reported in 2013 (29) S.T.R. 33 (Tri. Bang.) wherein it has been held as under : - 10.1 Whether, in the case of each of the two JVs, the service provided to the Government of Andhra Pradesh is classifiable as "WCS" has to be determined from the nature of the relevant contracts as understood by the parties thereto as also from the scope of the works executed under the contracts. Of-course, this exercise has to be undertaken with reference to the definition of "works contract" embodied i....