TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 446
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e appellant had issued following three work orders to M/s. Laxmi Narayan Agarwal Service Provider, the service provider. a) Work Order No. P-33 (Works) I/13-14/1745-55 dated 1.10.2013 for construction of two auction platforms covered with CGI sheet at Mahdi Phalodi b) Work Order No. 1102 dated 7.11.2016 for construction of self supporting roofing work over internal roads of Block B at Terminal Market, Muhana- Package 04/2016-17 c) Work Order no. 1118 dated 7.11.2016 for construction of self supporting roofing work over internal roads of Block B at Terminal Market Muhana- Package -03/2016-17 3. Neither the service provider nor the appellant paid any service tax on these services. The Service provider was however, registered with the Service tax department. Receiving intelligence that the service provider had rendered taxable services and had not paid service tax on them, the officers initiated an investigation, issued several summons to the service provider and obtained details of the services provided by him. 4. The submission of the service provider during investigation was that the services provided to the appellant were exempted by Notification N....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y are sold or auctioned. (iv) The platform work involves constructing auction platforms covered with CGI sheets which provides space for the storage of agricultural products before they are sold. (v) Roofing work is carried out for internal roads where trucks and other vehicles loaded with agricultural produce are parked until the goods are unloaded or sold. (vi) Therefore, all the structures were exempted by Notification no 25/2012-ST dated 20.6.2012 [S.No. 14(d)]. (vii) The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in denying the benefit of the exemption notification. (viii) The SCN is time barred as the notice has been issued beyond 18 months from the last date for filing the returns, i.e., 25.4.2016 and the SCN was issued only 2.2.2018. (ix) Extended period of limitation is not invocable as there is no evidence of malafide. No malafide can be presumed because the appellant is a government organisation. (x) As per Article 12 of the Constitution of India, the term 'State' includes the Government, Parliament, State Governments and all other local authorities. Therefore, the appellant should be considered 'State'. (xi) The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955 (16 of 1955), the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 (58 of 1957), the Additional Duties of Excise (Textiles and Textile Articles) Act, 1978 (40 of 1978), and the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986) (hereafter referred to as the repealed Acts) are hereby repealed. (2) The repeal of the said Acts and the amendment of the Finance Act, 1994 (32 of 1994) (hereafter referred to as "such amendment" or "amended Act", as the case may be) to the extent mentioned in the sub-section (1) or section 173 shall not-- (a) revive anything not in force or existing at the time of such amendment or repeal; or (b) affect the previous operation of the amended Act or repealed Acts and orders or anything duly done or suffered thereunder; or (c) affect any right, privilege, obligation, or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under the amended Act or repealed Acts or orders under such repealed or amended Acts: Provided that any tax exemption granted as an incentive against investment through a notification shall not continue as privilege if the said notification is rescinded on or afte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and confusion. For instance, if any assessee succeeds in service tax appeal and has to get consequential relief, if the CGST officers are held to be not authorised under Service Tax law, nobody can grant refund to the assessee because there are no more any service tax officers. This submission of the learned counsel on the question of jurisdiction deserves to be rejected and is rejected. 11. We now consider the submission of the learned counsel that the appellant should be considered as 'State' in view of Article 12 of the Constitution. Article 12 reads as follows: PART III FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS General 12. In this Part, unless the context otherwise requires, "the State'' includes the Government and Parliament of India and the Government and the Legislature of each of the States and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India. ( emphasis supplied ) 12. Learned counsel completely misunderstood the scope of the definition of 'State' under Article 12. It is meant for only Part III (Fundamental Rights) of the Constitution and that too unless the context otherwise requires. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntenance, renovation, or alteration of,- (a) a road, bridge, tunnel or termination for road transportation for use by general public; 16. We find that what is in dispute is not the construction of the road but a roof over it. These are not roads for use by general public but are clearly roads for use by those who go to buy or sell goods in the mandi. Therefore, nothing in S.No. 13(a) covers the services received by the appellant. 17. An alternative claim of the appellant is that the services which it had received were exempted by Notification no. 25/2012-ST [S.No. 14(d)]. It reads as follows: "14. Services by way of construction, erection, commissioning or installation of original works pertaining to,- (a) (b) (c) (d) post-harvest storage infrastructure for agricultural produce including cold storage for such purposes;" 18. The submission of the learned counsel is that since the goods which are brought to the mandis for auction are kept on the auction platform before they are sold, the auction platform should be considered as post harvest storage infrastructure. Insofar as the roads are concerned, since the trucks stop ....