TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 418
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gathered by the jurisdictional Range Officer that the appellant has not been discharging his tax liability and not filing ST-3 Returns on the services rendered to various organizations and institutions Including M/s. M.P. Housing & Infrastructure Development Board, Sub-Division, Chhatarpur. Accordingly, information and documents in respect of services provided by the appellant were called. The Assistant Engineer, M.P. Housing & Infrastructure Development Board vide letter dated 08.11.2017 informed that during the Year 2012-13 to 2014-15 no construction work of residential colony has been undertaken in Chhatarpur. The appellant was also providing construction service, a civil structure or any other original work pertaining to a scheme ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....020 dated 21.08.2020 proposing service tax to the tune of Rs.15,67,44,052/- for the amount of Rs.1,05,53,59,866/- received during the Financial Year 2015-16 to 2017-18 (up to June 2017). The proposal was confirmed vide Order-in-Original No. 04/2021-22 dated 19.01.2022. Being aggrieved the appellant is before this Tribunal. 2. We have heard Shri Anurag Mishra, learned Advocate for the appellant and Shri Rajeev Kapoor, learned Authorized Representative for Revenue. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that during the disputed period, appellant has provided Works Contract Services to various clients including Public Works Department, State Health Society, National Rural Health Mission, M.P. Housing Infra Development Board, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gned order. It is further submitted that the adjudicating authority has examined each and every work order and thereafter has dropped the demand wherever the activity of appellant qualifies to the conditions of Mega Exemption Notification No. 25/2012 dated 20.06.2012. Only those demands have been confirmed which failed to qualify for the said exemption. 4.1 Finally, it is submitted that the appellant has never declared the receipt of the amounts for rendering taxable services to the department nor did they pay the applicable service tax on the same. Impressing upon no infirmity in the order under challenge, the appeal is prayed to be dismissed. 5. Having heard both the parties and perusing the entire records including the impugned ord....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is about construction of mini agriculture market with agriculture facilitation center under the bundelkhand drought mitigation package at Malhara, Chhatarpur covered under remaining nine contracts is held taxable holding the activity being meant for commercial use. To adjudicate the correctness of those findings, the appellant has claimed the benefit of Entry No. 12A(c) of the said Mega Exemption Notification. We have perused the said entry which exempts the following activities. (a) Services provided to Government, local authority, or governmental authority; (b) By way of construction, erection, commissioning, or installation of original works; (c) Pertaining to structures meant predominantly for use other than ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erpreted strictly as a profit oriented activity and not every activity involving money or transactions become commercial. In light of these settled principles the undisputed facts pertaining to the present case are that the construction of mini agricultural market is pursuant to a government scheme. Infrastructure in question is meant for agriculture and welfare thereto. 5.3 The impugned issue with respect to the similar facts, as above, has already been dealt with by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax reported as 2022 (5) SCC 62, wherein it has been held that the activities performed by the sovereign/public authority, if those are the statutory functions and t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ernment is the part of government approved residential housing projects. The adjudicating authority is therefore held to commit an error while holding that the services were not provided to the competent authority. In view thereof, the order confirming the aforesaid demand of service tax is hereby set aside. 5.5 The services are provided after 01.03.2015, hence were not eligible for exemption. We observe that based on the said reason, construction of High School building is denied exemption benefit which the appellant had claimed in terms of Entry No. 14(A) of the Mega Exemption Notification. At this stage, we have perused the said entry. The entry reads as follows: "14A. Services by way of construction, erection, commissioning,....