TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 456
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cal authority under reverse charge mechanism [RCM] invoking the extended period of limitation under section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 [the Act] 2. The appellant a wholly owned undertaking of the Government of Rajasthan is a nodal agency in the implementation of various IT related projects of the Department of Information Technology and Communication. While implementing the projects of laying of Optical Fibre Cable in the rural areas, the appellant was required to undertake road cutting and rural electrification services which he received from various government or local authority, such as PWD, Municipal Council, Nagar Nigam etc. During the audit, the department noticed that the appellant had made payments amounting to Rs.3,41,96,629/- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s a 'pure agent', however, since they failed to fulfil the specific conditions stipulated in rule 5(2) of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006, the value of such reimbursable expenditure would form integral part of the services provided and which are liable to be included in the value of taxable services on which the appellant is liable to pay service tax. However, before us the learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that the services rendered in the present case are squarely covered under the Mega Exemption Notification No. 25/2012. She specifically referred to Entry No. 13 and 60, which reads as: "13. Services provided by way of construction, erection, commissioning, installation, completion, fitting out, re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hasised that in terms of Entry No. 56 of Notification No.22/2016, the exemption was available only when the gross amount charged by government or local authority did not exceed Rs.5000 and since in the present case, the payments made by the appellant amounted to Rs.3,41,96,629/- which was beyond the exemption threshold, the exemption ceases to apply. 7. Since the arguments of the learned Counsel for the appellant is limited to the availment of the exemption notification under Entry 13 and 60, we may consider the eligibility of the appellant thereunder. Entry 13 exempts services, provided by way of construction, erection, commissioning, installation, completion, fitting out, repair, maintenance, renovation, or alteration of a road for use....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....struction of public road, which has been damaged by them on account of their personal work done on the public road at industrial area in Dewas. There is no reason to deny the benefit of the exemption notification and therefore, the demand of service tax is unsustainable." In view of the above findings of the Tribunal, we hold that no service tax can be charged on the activity of road cutting as the said activity would fall within the concept of Entry 13(a) of the mega exemption notification. 8. Coming to the applicability of Entry 60 of the notification, we find that necessary requisites to be eligible to claim the benefit thereunder is that the services are provided by government, a local authority or a government authority. As point....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tification has been issued amending the Notification No. 25/2012 and Serial No. 56 provides as under: "56. Services provided by Government or a local authority where the gross amount charged for such services does not exceed Rs. 5000/- : Provided that nothing contained in this entry shall apply to services specified in sub-clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of clause (a) of section 66D of the Finance Act, 1994: Provided further that in case where continuous supply of service, as defined in clause (c) of rule 2 of the Point of Taxation Rules, 2011, is provided by the Government or a local authority, the exemption shall apply only where the gross amount charged for such service does not exceed Rs. 5000/- in a financial yea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed Vs. Principal Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise Commissioner, Jaipur [2026 (2) TMI 399] (v) Resident Engineer, Rajsthan Housing Board Vs. Commissioner of CGST, Udaipur [Final Order No. 50989/2026 dated 25.05.2026] (vi) Rajasthan Housing Board Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (Jodhpur) [2021 (52) GSTL 144 (Tri-Del)] (vii) Rajasthan Housing Board Vs. CCE, Jaipur [2018 (7) TMI 1797] (viii) CERSAI Vs. Principal Commissioner, CGST, Delhi South [Final Order No. 50439/2023 dated 10.04.2023] 11. We find, that in case of the appellant themselves, it has been held that in the absence of any mala fide, suppression etc., the extended period cannot be invoked by the department. The principles for invoking ....