TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 795
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....an Mandi Parishad, Uttar Pradesh, in relation to construction, repair and painting of shops pertaining to Mandi Samiti, Lakhimpur. M/s Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad Uttar Pradesh and Mandi Samiti Lakhimpur are 'Governmental Authorities'. Under the bonafide belief that Works Contract service provided to them to Governmental Authorities are exempt from payment of service tax under Entry No. 60 of Notification No. 25/2012-ST, dated 20.06.2012, the Appellant did not pay service tax. 2.1. Show Cause Notice No. 352/AC/CGST/Sitapur/R-lakhimpur/2021 was issued to Appellant demanding service tax of Rs. 48,33,913/- under the proviso to Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 along with interest. The Notice also proposed imposition of penalty under section 78 along with various other penalties. Appellant filed defense reply contesting the demand of tax and penalty etc. on the ground of the service rendered by them to the Government authorities are exempt from payment of service tax. Appellant submitted all the agreements/work orders etc. 2.2. On adjudication, Order-In-Original No. 87/AC/ST/STP/2022 was passed, wherein the demand of tax service tax of Rs. 31,03,269/- has been d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....osed by this or any other enactment, may sue or be sued in its corporate name and acquire, hold and dispose of property and enter into contracts: Provided that the Committee shall not transfer any movable property except in accordance with a resolution duly passed at any of its meetings by a majority of not less than three-fourths of the total number of its members and with the previous approval in writing of the Board. (2) The Committee shall be deemed to be a local authority for the purposes of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and any other law for the time being in force." 4.1. Similarly, the Rajya Krishi Utpad Mandi Parishad Uttar Pradesh has been constituted by Section 26A of the said Act, which is extracted as under: "26A (1) The State Government shall by notification in the Gazette, and with effect from a date to be specified therein, constitute a Board by the name of the State Agricultural Produce Market Board with its head office at Lucknow. (2) The Board shall be a body corporate by the said name having perpetual succession and a common seal and any Sue or the sued by the said name and acquire, hold and dispose of property and enter Into c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....2012 and only 50% of tax should be demanded from the Appellant because Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad and Mandi Samiti are body corporates as per Section 12 and 26A of Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964. 5. Regarding the demand of Service Tax of Rs.2,70,000/- confirmed on the rent received by the Appellant from Allahabad Bank, the Appellant submits that the taxable value received by them for the Financial Year 2015-16 is less than Rs. Rs. 10 Lakh. Accordingly, the amount received by them during the Financial Year 2015-16 is exempted under Notification No. 33/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012. In view of the above submissions, the demand of Service Tax amounting to Rs. 28,350/- on the amount of Rs. 2,70,000/- received as rent is liable to be set aside. 6. The Appellant also contested demand on the ground of limitation. It is the submission of the Appellant that extended period of limitation under proviso to Section 73(1) of Finance Act, 1994 is not invokable against the Appellant in absence of element of fraud, suppression etc. In the present case, the issue pertains to interpretation of statutory provisions whether Entry No 60 of Notification No. 25/2012-ST is ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icating Authority has considered the entities such as Rajya Krshi Utpad Mandi Parishad/Mandi Samiti as 'Governmental Authorities', as they were set up under an passed by the State Legislature. However, the Lower Authorities have not extended the benefit of exemption from service tax as provided under Entry No. 60 of the Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012, on the ground that the services rendered by them do not fall under the category of services as mentioned in Entry No.60 of the Notification No 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012. 9.2. We find that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has accepted that the Appellant has rendered services to 'Government Authorities'. Thus, we find that the Appellant has rendered the 'Works Contract' services to Government Authorities, is not in dispute. However, the exemption provided under Entry No.60 of the Notification No 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 has not been extended to them. 9.3. We find that exemption from services rendered to Governmental authorities are provided under various entries of Notification No 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012. In the proceedings before the lower authorities, the Appellant has claimed the exemption from service tax ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s rendered by the Appellant by way of repairing and painting of shops pertaining to Mandi Samiti Lakhimpur of Rajya Krshi Utpad Mandi, are in relation to promoting the marketing activity of agricultural produce by the farmers, which fall within the ambit of Article 243G of the Constitution. Thus, we are of the view that the Works Contract services rendered by the Appellant are exempted from payment of service tax as per Entry No.60 of the Notification No 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012. Accordingly, we hold that the Appellant are eligible for exemption as per Entry No.60 of the Notification No 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 and hence the demand confirmed by the impugned order by not allowing the exemption as per Entry No.60 of the Notification No 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 is not sustainable. 9.7. We find that learned Authorized Representative has submitted a decision of this Bench in the case of M/s Ganpati Mega Builders India Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) wherein on similar facts and circumstances the said Appellant was denied exemption as provided under Notification No.25/2012-ST. On perusal of the said order, we find that the Appellant has claimed the exemption under Serial No. 12(a), 12(c), ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e show cause notice in the present case fails to meet. In Aban Loyd Chiles Offshore Limited and Ors. (supra), this Court made the following observations : "21. This Court while interpreting Section 11-A of the Central Excise Act in Collector of Central Excise v. H.M.M. Ltd. (supra) has observed that in order to attract the proviso to Section 11-A(1) it must be shown that the excise duty escaped by reason of fraud, collusion or willful misstatement of suppression of fact with intent to evade the payment of duty. It has been observed : '...Therefore, in order to attract the proviso to Section 11A(1) it must be alleged in the show-cause notice that the duty of excise had not been levied or paid by reason of fraud, collusion or willful misstatement or suppression of fact on the part of the assessee or by reason of contravention of any of the provisions of the Act or of the Rules made thereunder with intent to evade payment of duties by such person or his agent. There is no such averment to be found in the show cause notice. There is no averment that the duty of excise had been intentionally evaded or that fraud or collusion had been practiced or that the assessee was ....