2015 (7) TMI 927 - AT - Service Tax

Waiver of pre deposit - construction service - whether service tax has to be paid for different types of services rendered to TTD - Held that - no evidence has been produced by the appellant to show that the activities undertaken relate to agriculture. The show-cause notice was issued in this case on 31.05.2012, whereas the demand for reworking of agricultural land relates to the year 2008-09. Therefore, it becomes necessary to examine whether appellants have sufficient grounds to consider it as agricultural work or not, which would require the details of agreement, the kind of work undertaken etc. to be considered, which in our opinion may not be necessary at this stage since it would consume a lot of time. Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances, we waive the requirement of pre-deposit and grant stay against recovery of dues during the pendency of appeal. - Stay granted.

Summary

Issues involved:
Demand of service tax on various services rendered to Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam (TTD) including construction of girls hostel, second floor for Ayurvedic hospital, cottages, and reworking of agricultural land as sub-contractors.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to the demand of service tax on different services provided to Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam (TTD) by the appellants between 2007-2010 till 2012. The issue revolves around whether service tax is applicable to the consideration received for these services. The learned counsel for the appellant referred to a previous Tribunal decision in the case of Bh. Venkata Ramakrishna Raju Vs CCE, where it was held that in the absence of liability to service tax on non-commercial/non-industrial activities, the appellants may have a case. This decision sets a precedent regarding the taxability of services provided to TTD.

Regarding the specific service of reworking of agricultural land, the learned A.R. argues that the principles established in the previous case may not apply in this instance. He asserts that there is a lack of evidence to prove that the activities undertaken by the appellants relate to agriculture. The show-cause notice for this particular service was issued in 2012, while the demand relates to the year 2008-09. The Tribunal acknowledges the need to examine whether the work qualifies as agricultural, requiring detailed information such as the agreement terms and the nature of work performed. However, to expedite proceedings and avoid unnecessary delays, the Tribunal decides to waive the pre-deposit requirement and grants a stay on the recovery of dues during the appeal process.

In conclusion, the judgment addresses the service tax liability on a range of services provided to TTD, highlighting the applicability of tax based on the nature of activities. It emphasizes the need for evidence and details to determine the taxability of specific services, while also prioritizing efficiency in the legal proceedings by granting relief to the appellants during the appeal.