9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (3) TMI 1439 - AT - Service TaxWorks contract service - Non/Short payment of service tax - various contracts executed by him under works contract services - rendering of service to Religious institutions - extended period of limitation - Held that - In the case in hand, the issue of rendering of services to religious institutions, the period needs bifurcated pre and post 01.07.2012. There is no dispute as to the fact that appellant had constructed guest houses for the temples at Srisailam and Kanipakam. The said work order which is attached to the appeal memoranda indicates that the construction is for VIP guest houses at the temples. The adjudicating authority has come to a conclusion that the said services rendered by the appellant to the religious institutions claiming exemption is based on the nature of organisation for which construction services have been provided or the use of the building or the civil structure constructed by them and also focussed wrongly on the non-profit motive of such organisation. For the period post 01.07.2012, Mega-exemption Notification No 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 at Sl No 13 (c) exempts the tax liability on a building owned by an entity registered under Section 12 AA of the Income Tax Act 1961 and meant predominantly for religious use by general public. This exemption clearly covers the case of the appellant post 01.07.2012 as it is undisputed that appellant is registered with the income tax authorities under Section 12AA as a charitable institutions for the period pre and post 01.07.2012. The exemption granted by Notification No 25/2012 ST (13) (c) would apply in full force. Accordingly, the demand of the service tax on the services rendered of works contract services to the religious institution does not survive and are liable to be set aside as we do so. Demand of service tax - buildings constructed for C-DAC, NFC and APHMHIDC - Held that - The APHMHIDC has been stated to be engaged in creating infrastructure facilities of accommodation for medical institutions and quarters, and maintenance of hospital buildings, procurement and distribution of drugs, surgical and consumables and equipment and for storage of these items and that the said APHMHIDC is functioning as no profit and no loss basis. The said hand-out also specifically states that it is an enterprise of Govt of Andhra Pradesh. On perusal of the profile of NFC, it states that it has been established in the year 1971 as a major industrial unit of Department of Atomic Energy, Govt of India and the complex is responsible for supply of fuel and reactor core components for all the nuclear power reactors operating in India. The said NFC has been clearly indicated as a Unit of Department of Atomic energy, Govt of India. As regards the C-DAC, it is indicated in the profile of C-DAC that it is a premium R D organisation of the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEIT) for carrying out R D in IT, electronics, and associated areas - these buildings constructed by the appellant and the services rendered under works contract services are not taxable pre or post 01.07.2012. Service tax liability on the buildings constructed for ICFAI - Held that - The issue is no more res integra as the Tribunal in the case of VIJ Construction Pvt Ltd Vs CCE New Delhi 2018 (4) TMI 598 - CESTAT NEW DELHI was considering the very same issue of taxability of the services for construction of buildings for ICFAI and in paragraph No. 6 has held that in regard to campus for ICFAI University Dehradun, the buildings are for use of a recognised university for education and the same cannot be considered as commercial buildings. ICFAI University is having pan India presence, operating in various campuses, it has to be considered as an educational institution - the service tax liability on the construction of buildings for ICFAI Bangalore, Jaipur and Hyderabad for the period pre and post 01.07.2012 is unsustainable and liable to be set aside. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues Involved:
1. Tax liability on services rendered to religious institutions. 2. Tax liability on services rendered to government departments/corporations. 3. Tax liability on services rendered to educational institutions. 4. Invocation of the extended period of limitation. Detailed Analysis: 1. Tax Liability on Services Rendered to Religious Institutions: The appellant argued that services provided to religious institutions before and after 01.07.2012 were not for commercial or industrial purposes. The Revenue contended that guest houses constructed were let out for consideration, thus falling under commerce and industry. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had constructed guest houses and a multi-storied complex for temples, which were registered under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, indicating their non-profit nature. The Tribunal referred to the definition of "works contract services" under Section 65(105)(zzzza) of the Finance Act, which excludes services not primarily for commerce or industry. The Tribunal also cited the Larger Bench decision in Lanco Infratech Ltd, which held that services for non-commercial purposes are not taxable. For the period post 01.07.2012, the Mega-exemption Notification No. 25/2012-ST exempted buildings owned by entities registered under Section 12AA and meant for religious use. Thus, the demand for service tax on services rendered to religious institutions was set aside. 2. Tax Liability on Services Rendered to Government Departments/Corporations: The appellant contended that buildings constructed for C-DAC, NFC, and APHMHIDC were not for commercial or industrial purposes. The Tribunal examined the profiles of these entities, noting that APHMHIDC is engaged in creating infrastructure for medical institutions and operates on a no-profit basis. NFC is a unit of the Department of Atomic Energy, and C-DAC is an R&D organization under the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology. The Tribunal found that these entities are government units and not primarily engaged in commerce or industry. The Tribunal referred to previous decisions, including Ratan Das Gupta & Co and S.M. Sai Construction, which followed the Larger Bench decision in Lanco Infratech, confirming that buildings constructed for non-commercial purposes are not taxable. Therefore, the service tax demand for buildings constructed for C-DAC, NFC, and APHMHIDC was set aside. 3. Tax Liability on Services Rendered to Educational Institutions: The appellant argued that buildings constructed for ICFAI were for educational purposes and not commercial. The Tribunal referred to the case of VIJ Construction Pvt Ltd, which held that buildings constructed for ICFAI University were for educational use and not commercial. The Tribunal noted that ICFAI University operates across India and is recognized for educational purposes. Thus, the service tax demand for buildings constructed for ICFAI was set aside. 4. Invocation of the Extended Period of Limitation: The appellant argued that the extended period of limitation was not applicable as an audit had already taken place in 2010, and the demand was raised in 2012. The Tribunal did not delve into this issue in detail, as the appeal was disposed of on merits. Conclusion: The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, concluding that the services rendered to religious institutions, government departments/corporations, and educational institutions were not taxable under works contract services. The Tribunal emphasized the non-commercial nature of these services and the applicable exemptions.
|
