TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 517
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....original dated 23.02.2017 passed by the Deputy Commissioner and rejected the appellant's appeal. The Deputy Commissioner had, in his order-in-original, decided the proposals made in two show cause notices dated 16.04.2015 (covering the period 2013-14) and 17.03.2016 (covering the period 2014-15) and confirmed a demand of Rs. 15,39,755/- as service tax and also imposed penalty of Rs. 1,53,008/- under section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 . 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned authorized representative appearing for the department and perused the records. 3. The appellant had a service tax registration under the category of 'Work Contract Service' and was providing 'Work Contract Services' to Rajasthan Ho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oner dropped the demand. 6. Insofar as this period is concerned, learned authorized representative appearing for the department submits that this appeal pertains to post-negative list period in which any service rendered was exigible to service tax unless the service fall under the negative list or was or otherwise exempted by any Exemption Notification. It is the case of the appellant that the services were exempted by Notification No. 25/2025(12A). Learned authorized representative submits that it has already be decided by this Tribunal in ST/51298/2016, M/s A.S. Construction Company Limited vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Udaipur, by Final Order No. 50456 of 2025 dated 01.04.2025 that Rajasthan Housing Board does not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t that time has been held to not include individual houses but only buildings with 12 or more residential units. It is for this reason, the Commissioner has dropped the demand. 11. We are now concerned with post-negative list period in which any service rendered is taxable unless which is under the negative list or is exempted. The claim of the appellant is that the services were exempted as they were rendered to Rajasthan Housing Board which is a governmental authority. In A.S. Construction Company Limited, this Tribunal held as follows: 9. To appreciate the contention that have been advanced it would be appropriate to examine the Exemption Notification dated 20.06.2012. It exempts the taxable services mentioned therein from th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2014. Thus, clause (s) as it stood when the Exemption Notification was issued on 20.06.2012, and as it stood when it was amended on 30.01.2014 would be relevant. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Shapoorji Pallonji. This decision interpreted the amended clause (s) of the Exemption Notification, which amendment came into effect w.e.f. 30.01.2014. The Supreme Court placed emphasized on the 'semicolon' and 'comma' used in the amended definition and observed that the conjunction 'or' between sub-clauses (i) and (ii) divides the clauses into two parts and, therefore, both the parts would be independent of each other. Thus, a 'governmental authority' would mean either an a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....p by an Act of a State Legislature or a board established by the State Government. Thus, for the period w.e.f. 30.01.2014 the appellant cannot contend that the Rajasthan Housing Board is a 'governmental authority'. 17. Thus, (ii) of clause (s) would be relevant in such a situation. It was, therefore, for the appellant to substantiate that the Rajasthan Housing Board was established by the 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 but the appellant did not do so and merely relied upon (1) of clause (s). 18. What remains to be examined is whether Rajasthan Housing Board would be a 'governmental authority'....