9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (7) TMI 583 - AT - Service TaxWaiver of pre deposit - Demand of service tax - Construction service - whether the commercial and industrial buildings constructed by the appellant for M/s GETCO (M/s Gujarat Energy Transmission Corporation Ltd.) M/s PGVCL (M/s Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Ltd.) M/s GTL Infra Ltd M/s TPS Sikka (M/s Thermal Power Station Sikka 2, 30, 700/- already paid by the appellant is considered as enough deposit for granting stay on the remaining amounts. It is accordingly ordered that there will be stay on recovery of the remaining amounts till the disposal of the appeal. - Stay granted.
Issues involved:
1. Whether construction activities for specific entities attract Service Tax. 2. Whether services provided to a particular entity fall under taxable services. 3. Liability of the appellant to pay Service Tax on commission earned by sub-contractors. Analysis: Issue 1: Construction activities for specific entities and Service Tax liability The appellant filed a stay application against the order confirming a demand with penalties under various sections of the Finance Act, 1994. The primary contention was whether the construction activities undertaken for entities like M/s GETCO, M/s PGVCL, M/s GTL Infra Ltd, among others, would attract Service Tax liability. The appellant argued that the constructions were for government companies or residential purposes and should not incur Service Tax. Reference was made to case laws supporting the exemption of Service Tax on constructions for government entities. The tribunal acknowledged the contentious nature of the issues raised and noted that a detailed examination would be necessary during the final hearing. Considering the case laws cited and an amount already paid by the appellant, a stay was granted on the remaining amounts pending appeal disposal. Issue 2: Taxable services provided to a specific entity Another aspect of the case revolved around services provided to M/s GSPHCL, specifically 'Residential Complex' and 'Construction of Complex Service.' The question was whether these services should be considered taxable under relevant sections of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant's argument was based on the nature of constructions and the entities involved, emphasizing the non-commercial aspect of the projects. The tribunal, while granting the stay, did not delve into the specifics of this issue but highlighted the need for a thorough examination during the final hearing due to the complexity and significance of the matter. Issue 3: Liability for Service Tax on sub-contractors' commission The third issue pertained to the appellant's liability to pay Service Tax on the commission earned by their sub-contractors falling under 'Business Auxiliary Services.' The appellant's defense was centered on the nature of the constructions and the applicability of Service Tax based on previous case laws and circulars. The tribunal, while acknowledging the arguments presented, did not provide a detailed analysis in the stay order but indicated that a comprehensive review would be essential during the final hearing to address the complexities involved. In conclusion, the tribunal granted a stay on the recovery of the remaining amounts pending the appeal's disposal, considering the arguments, case laws, and the deposit made by the appellant. The detailed examination of the issues involved, especially regarding the Service Tax liability on specific constructions and services provided, was deemed necessary during the final hearing for a comprehensive resolution.
|
