9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (4) TMI 1540 - AT - Service TaxNon-payment of service tax on the entire charges collected from M/s Hindustan Zinc - Maintenance Repair Services - Whether the appellant is liable to pay service tax on the differential amount of consideration and actual value of spare parts for the period prior to 01.07.2012 or not? - HELD THAT - It is a fact on record that maintenance and repair contracts as were entered between appellant and M/s Hindustan Zinc Limited are the composite contracts involving supply of goods as well as for providing the service. Such Contracts were there is a contract of supply of goods as well as of providing services are termed as Works Contracts and the same were made taxable w.e.f. 01.06.2007 under the category of Works Contract Services as held by the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner v. Larsen Toubro Ltd. 2015 (8) TMI 749 - SUPREME COURT . The Hon ble Supreme Court in Larsen Toubro in paragraph 24 drew a distinction between the service contracts simpliciter and a composite works contracts which would involve both services and goods and held that it is only w.e.f. June 01 2007 that composite contracts can be subjected to levy of service tax and not before this date. Therefore prior to 01.06.2007 also the nature of activity undertaken by the appellant is works contract services but for the period prior to 01.06.2007 covered by the decision of Larsen Toubro Ltd. this was not liable to pay Service Tax at all. W.e.f. 01.06.2007. Similar issue has come up before this Tribunal in the case of Xerox India Ltd. 2018 (3) TMI 1006 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH wherein this Tribunal has held that if service has been provided along with material and the value of material supplied cannot be vivisected in that circumstances appropriate classification of the service shall be works contract service and same is not taxable prior to 01.06.2007. Hence prior to 1.6.2007 even the service portion of a composite contract was outside the ambit of service tax net. Accordingly the repair and maintenance services under clause (zzg) of Section 65(105) refers only to contracts for service simpliciter and not composite contracts like the present ones. Therefore no service tax is leviable on such composite contracts upto 1.6.2007. Coming to the impugned demand for the period post 01.07.2012 it is observed from the show cause notice dated 03.09.2013 as issued for the post July 2007 amendment but the amended provisions have not been mentioned in the said show cause notice. It is utmost mandatory for the Department to first establish that the nature of the services subsequently and the respective charging provisions and the heavy burden is cast upon the department to prove that the demand is sustainable under the said charging provisions but as already observed above. The show cause notice has no proper and correct charging provisions. The show cause notice is nothing but a vague show cause notice. The demand on such show cause notice is not sustainable. Conclusion - i) The appellant s composite maintenance and repair contracts involving supply of spare parts were works contracts and not taxable as service contracts simpliciter prior to 01.07.2012. ii) Service tax demand on the spare parts portion for periods prior to 01.07.2012 is unsustainable. iii) The show cause notices issued for the post-01.07.2012 period were vague and failed to specify the correct charging provisions invalidating the demand for that period. iv) The value of spare parts on which VAT was paid cannot be included in the taxable value for service tax under composite contracts. The orders under challenge are hereby set-aside - Appeal allowed.
The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal in these appeals revolve around the applicability and scope of service tax on composite contracts involving maintenance and repair services along with supply of spare parts, specifically:
Issue-wise detailed analysis: 1. Liability to pay service tax on composite contracts prior to 01.07.2012 The appellant entered into long-term comprehensive maintenance and repair contracts with a client involving supply of spare parts, manpower fees, and logistics fees. The appellant contended that the spare parts charges were subject to VAT and not service tax, and that the contracts were composite in nature, involving both goods and services. The Department challenged this, demanding service tax on the entire value including spare parts. The Tribunal examined the relevant legal framework, notably the Finance Act, 1994, and the definition of taxable services under Section 65(105). It relied heavily on the Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner vs. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. (2015), which distinguished between pure service contracts and composite works contracts involving both goods and services. The Court held that prior to 01.06.2007, service tax was leviable only on service contracts simpliciter, not on composite works contracts. Further, the Tribunal noted that the definition of 'works contract' under the Finance Act was limited to certain categories (erection and commissioning, construction of immovable property, turnkey projects, and repair of immovable property) and did not include repair and maintenance of movable property until the introduction of the Negative List Regime on 01.07.2012. Therefore, composite contracts involving repair and maintenance of movable property were not liable to service tax before that date. The Tribunal also referenced its own precedents, including decisions in Xerox India Ltd. and BEML Ltd., which supported the view that composite contracts involving supply of goods and services were not taxable prior to 01.07.2012. The appellant's contracts fell within this category, and thus, the demand for service tax on the spare parts portion for periods before 01.07.2012 was unsustainable. Competing arguments from the Department conceded the settled position regarding works contract service liability prior to 2007 but maintained the demand based on the orders under challenge. The Tribunal rejected this, emphasizing the binding nature of the Supreme Court's ruling and the statutory framework. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the appellant was not liable to pay service tax on the differential value including spare parts for the period prior to 01.07.2012, as the contracts were composite works contracts not taxable under the service tax regime then applicable. 2. Validity of show cause notices and charging provisions post 01.07.2012 For the period after 01.07.2012, the Department issued show cause notices demanding service tax under the amended provisions incorporating the Negative List Regime, which expanded the scope of 'works contract' to include repair and maintenance of movable property. However, the appellant challenged the notices on the ground that the charging provisions invoked were vague or incorrect, and that the notices failed to specify the correct statutory provisions applicable post-amendment. The Tribunal analyzed the statutory requirement for clarity and specificity in show cause notices, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner vs. Dilip Kumar & Company (2018), which emphasized strict compliance with charging provisions in taxation statutes and held that any ambiguity must be resolved in favor of the assessee. The Tribunal also cited its own precedent in Frisco Food Private Limited, which underscored that a charging section must exist and be properly invoked for a demand to be valid. In the present case, the Tribunal found that the show cause notices for the post-2012 period did not correctly specify the amended charging provisions and were thus vague. The Department bore the heavy burden of establishing the demand under the correct provisions, which it failed to discharge. Consequently, the demand for service tax for the post-01.07.2012 period was held unsustainable. The Department's argument reiterating the demand was rejected in light of the statutory requirement for precise charging provisions and the jurisprudential principle of strict construction of taxing statutes. Conclusion: The Tribunal held that the show cause notices for the post-01.07.2012 period were vague and lacked proper charging provisions, rendering the demand unsustainable and liable to be set aside. 3. Classification of the contracts and application of legal precedents The Tribunal carefully distinguished between service contracts simpliciter and composite works contracts, applying the Supreme Court's reasoning in Larsen & Toubro Ltd. and earlier decisions like Gannon Dunkerley. It recognized that composite contracts involving both supply of goods and services are a distinct species and that the tax liability depends on the statutory definitions and effective dates of amendments. The Tribunal also referred to its own consistent precedents, including Xerox India Ltd., BEML Ltd., and others, which reinforced that composite contracts involving supply of goods and services were not taxable as service contracts before the statutory inclusion of such contracts in the service tax net. It was noted that the appellant's contracts were composite in nature, involving supply of spare parts (goods) and repair and maintenance services (service), and thus fell within the category of works contracts. The Tribunal emphasized that service tax was leviable on such contracts only from the date the law explicitly included them, i.e., post 01.07.2012 for movable property repair and maintenance. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the principle that composite contracts are to be treated as works contracts and that service tax liability arises only when the statutory provisions explicitly cover such contracts, which was not the case prior to 01.07.2012 for movable property repair and maintenance. 4. Treatment of VAT paid on spare parts and tax incidence The appellant paid VAT on spare parts supplied under the contracts and contended that service tax could not be levied on the same value again. The Department argued for inclusion of the entire consideration including spare parts in the taxable value for service tax. The Tribunal, following the principle that composite contracts involving supply of goods and services are distinct and that the value of goods supplied (on which VAT was paid) cannot be included in the taxable value of service, held that the value of spare parts was not includible in the service tax base prior to the relevant statutory amendments. The Tribunal relied on earlier decisions that rejected the inclusion of goods value in the service tax base under composite contracts. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the value of spare parts, on which VAT was paid, could not be subjected to service tax as part of the composite contract value prior to the amendment dates. 5. Limitation and procedural aspects The appellant raised grounds related to limitation and procedural irregularities in the issuance of show cause notices and confirmation of demands. While these were not the primary focus, the Tribunal noted that the remand proceedings and re-adjudications had been conducted but the fundamental legal position remained unchanged, supporting the appellant's case. Significant holdings include the following verbatim excerpts and principles: "A close look at the Finance Act, 1994 would show that the five taxable services referred to in the charging Section 65(105) would refer only to service contracts simpliciter and not to composite works contracts... It is only w.e.f. June 01, 2007 that composite contracts can be subjected to levy of service tax and not before this date." "If service has been provided along with material and the value of material supplied cannot be vivisected, in that circumstances, appropriate classification of the service shall be works contract service and same is not taxable prior to 01.06.2007." "It is utmost mandatory for the Department to first establish that the nature of the services subsequently and the respective charging provisions and the heavy burden is cast upon the department to prove that the demand is sustainable under the said charging provisions but as already observed above. The show cause notice has no proper and correct charging provisions. The show cause notice is nothing but a vague show cause notice." "Any ambiguity in a taxation provision, therefore, is interpreted in favour of the subject/assessee... if in the event of ambiguity in a taxation liability statute, the benefit should go to the subject/assessee." Final determinations on each issue:
|
