2025 (1) TMI 346 - AT - Service Tax

Failure to obtain service tax registration and failure to deposit due service tax liability thereon in government exchequer - manpower recruitment or supply agency - site formation and clearance excavation and earthmoving and demolition services - Extended perod of limitation. Non-payment of service tax - HELD THAT - It is found that the show cause notice dated 01.10.2014 was issued by the department for evasion of service tax on the allegation that the appellant has rendered taxable services under the category of manpower recruitment or supply agency and site formation and clearance excavation and earthmoving and demolition services and did not obtain service tax registration and also did not deposit the service tax liability in government exchequer - in this case, the services were provided to M/s NTPC which is a governmental authority and were exempted from levy of service tax. M/s NTPC is a public sector undertaking under the ownership of the Ministry of Power and is under control of the Government of India and is engaged in generation of electricity. Hon ble Apex Court in the case of COMMISSIONER, CUSTOMS CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX, PATNA VERSUS M/S SHAPOORJI PALLONJI AND COMPANY PVT. LTD. ORS. AND UNION OF INDIA ORS. VERSUS M/S SHAPOORJI PALLONJI AND COMPANY PVT. LTD. 2023 (10) TMI 748 - SUPREME COURT has considered the scope of definition of Governmental Authority and as per the settled position of law, a Governmental Authority means an authority or a board or any other body (i) set up by an Act of Parliament or a State Legislature; or (ii) established by government with 90% or more participation by way of equity or control to carry out any function entrusted to a municipality under Article 243W of the Constitution . Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT - The invocation of extended period in the present case is also not warranted because the appellant had a bona fide belief that no service tax was attracted on the value of services rendered by them to turnkey projects being a minor sub-contractor in projects declared by Government of India as Mega Development Project of National Importance. The appellant even did not get itself registered due to the said bona fide belief and also did not recover any service tax from the main contractor M/s ITD or from M/s NTPC; and there was no intention to evade payment of service tax on the part of the appellant. Conclusion - Services provided as part of a 'Work Contract' related to dam construction are exempt. The services to a 'governmental authority' are exempt. The invocation of extended period in the present case is also not warranted because the appellant had a bona fide belief that no service tax was attracted. Appeal allowed.

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The legal judgment addresses several core issues:

Whether the services rendered by the appellant fall under the category of 'manpower recruitment or supply agency' and 'site formation and clearance excavation and earthmoving and demolition' services, making them liable for service tax.
Whether the services provided by the appellant qualify as 'Work Contract' services and are exempt from service tax under the relevant notifications.
Whether the appellant's services were provided to a 'governmental authority' and thus exempt from service tax.
Whether the invocation of the extended period for demand due to alleged evasion of service tax is justified.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Classification of Services

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The classification of services under the Finance Act, 1994, particularly Section 65 (105) (zzzza), and relevant case laws, such as the decision in Sunil Hi-Tech Engineers Ltd.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court examined whether the services provided by the appellant were indeed 'manpower recruitment or supply agency' and 'site formation and clearance excavation and earthmoving and demolition' services.
Key Evidence and Findings: The agreements between the appellant and M/s ITD, and the nature of work performed, were scrutinized.
Application of Law to Facts: The court analyzed the scope of work and the actual services provided, concluding that the services were part of a larger construction project.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The appellant argued that the services were part of a 'Work Contract' and exempt, while the Revenue contended they were taxable under specific service categories.
Conclusions: The court found that the services did not fit the taxable categories as alleged by the Revenue.

Issue 2: Exemption under 'Work Contract'

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Notifications No. 17/2005-ST and 25/2012-ST, and relevant case laws, including CCE & ST, Patna vs. M/s Sapoorji Pallonji and Company Ltd.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court considered whether the services were part of a 'Work Contract' and thus exempt.
Key Evidence and Findings: The court reviewed the nature of the construction project and the specific work performed by the appellant.
Application of Law to Facts: The court determined that the services were indeed part of a 'Work Contract' related to dam construction, which was exempt.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The appellant's claim of exemption was supported by the court's interpretation of the relevant notifications.
Conclusions: The court concluded that the services were exempt under the 'Work Contract' category.

Issue 3: Services to a Governmental Authority

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Definition of 'Governmental Authority' and relevant case laws, including the Tribunal's decision in Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi vs. C.P. Systems Pvt Ltd.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court analyzed whether M/s NTPC qualified as a 'governmental authority'.
Key Evidence and Findings: The court considered M/s NTPC's status as a public sector undertaking under the Ministry of Power.
Application of Law to Facts: The court found that M/s NTPC was indeed a 'governmental authority', making the services exempt.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The appellant's position was validated by the court's interpretation of the governing laws.
Conclusions: The court held that the services were exempt as they were provided to a governmental authority.

Issue 4: Invocation of Extended Period

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The concept of bona fide belief and the criteria for invoking an extended period for demand.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court evaluated the appellant's claim of bona fide belief in non-liability for service tax.
Key Evidence and Findings: The appellant's lack of registration and non-recovery of service tax were considered.
Application of Law to Facts: The court assessed whether the appellant's actions constituted evasion.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The appellant's bona fide belief was weighed against the Revenue's claim of evasion.
Conclusions: The court found no justification for invoking the extended period, given the appellant's bona fide belief.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Preserve Verbatim Quotes: "The impugned order is not sustainable in law and therefore, we set aside the same by allowing the appeal of the appellant with consequential relief, if any, as per law."
Core Principles Established: Services provided as part of a 'Work Contract' related to dam construction are exempt; services to a 'governmental authority' are exempt; bona fide belief negates the invocation of an extended period for demand.
Final Determinations on Each Issue: The appeal was allowed, and the demand for service tax was set aside.

← Previous Next →