2019 (1) TMI 1233 - AT - Service Tax

Works contract services - composite works contract - the appellant claimed that their contracts are in the nature of works contracts which cannot be vivisected to demand service tax on one portion of the contract - extended period of limitation - Held that - It is not in dispute that the nature of services rendered by the appellant is works contract services . The specific nature of the activities undertaken by the appellant are not clearly brought out in the show cause notice but were put up by the learned counsel - It has been held by the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Larsen & Toubro Ltd 2015 (8) TMI 749 - SUPREME COURT that composite works contracts are not exigible to service tax prior to 01.06.2007. The appellant is not liable to pay service tax on such contracts during the relevant period - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Whether the appellant is liable to pay service tax on the services rendered during the relevant period?
- Whether the extended period of limitation can be invoked in this case?
- Whether interest and penalty can be imposed on the appellant?

Analysis:

Issue 1: Liability to pay service tax on services rendered
The appellant, a Public Sector Undertaking engaged in manufacturing heavy machinery, was found to have rendered taxable services without discharging their service tax liability. The department issued a show cause notice demanding service tax, interest, and penalty. The appellant contended that their contracts were works contracts not exigible to service tax before 01.06.2007, citing legal precedents. The Tribunal acknowledged that the services provided were indeed works contract services. Relying on the Supreme Court ruling in Larsen & Toubro Ltd, the Tribunal held that composite works contracts were not taxable before 01.06.2007. Consequently, the demand for service tax, interest, and penalties was set aside.

Issue 2: Extended period of limitation
The appellant argued against the invocation of the extended period of limitation, stating they regularly filed returns and reports, maintaining transparency about their activities. The Tribunal noted the appellant's compliance with reporting requirements and found no intention to evade tax. Considering the appellant's status as a Public Sector Undertaking and the department's awareness of their activities through filed reports, the Tribunal concluded that the extended period of limitation was not applicable.

Issue 3: Imposition of interest and penalty
The appellant challenged the imposition of interest and penalty, emphasizing their regular compliance with reporting obligations. The departmental representative supported the impugned order. However, the Tribunal, after considering arguments from both sides and reviewing the records, found in favor of the appellant. Given the nature of the services as works contracts and the legal precedent, the Tribunal set aside the demand for service tax, interest, and penalties, ultimately allowing the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal based on the non-taxability of composite works contracts before 01.06.2007. The decision highlighted the importance of legal precedents and compliance history in determining tax liabilities and penalties in such cases.