Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2023 (4) TMI 8

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... where it was held that Construction of pipeline or conduit (otherwise than under a turnkey/EPC mode), when executed for Government/Government undertakings for transmission of water or sewerage would be outside the ambit of levy of tax, in terms of the definition itself, since this would undisputedly fall within the ambit of sub-clause (b) of WCS. A Division Bench of the Tribunal in M/S ANGRAJ CIVIL PROJECTS PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE SERVICE TAX, LUCKNOW [ 2018 (12) TMI 251 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD] , after making reference to the aforesaid Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in Lanco Infratech Ltd., also held that the activity of laying of pipeline would not be for the purpose of commerce or industry and, therefore, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Nala from Swarn Rekha River and to join it to Mukhi River line at different points for the purpose of Swach Jal Prabha in Swarn Rekha River. According to the appellant, the work that was required to be undertaken was in respect of pipeline/conduit for flow of clean water in Swarn Rekha River and it was not for the purpose of commerce or industry. 3. A show cause notice dated January 03, 2012 was issued to the appellant stating that though the appellant was providing service under the category of works contract , but it did not pay service tax. The appellant filed a reply pointing out that the services provided by the appellant would not fall under works contract for the reason that laying of the pipeline/conduit was not for the purpo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e treated as works contract for the purpose of levy of Value Added tax/Sales Tax under the respective State legislations shall be treated as Work contract for the purpose of levy of service tax also. Therefore, all the construction work, irrespective of use to which they are put to, subject to levy of VAT/Sales tax would attract service tax at applicable rates under works contract with effect from 01.06.2007. Appellant has placed reliance on case Laws in support of their contention. However, the facts and circumstances of the present case are different, therefore ratio(s) laid down in those cases can t be applied. In view of the discussion I do not find any infirmity in the Impugned Order passed by Adjudicating authority, thus same is .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ectronic devices, plumbing, drain laying or other installations for transport of fluids, heating, ventilation or air-conditioning including related pipe work, duct work and sheet metal work, thermal insulation, sound insulation, fire proofing or water proofing, lift and escalator, fire escape staircases or elevators; or (b) construction of a new building or a civil structure or a part thereof, or of a pipeline or conduit, primarily for the purposes of commerce or industry; or (c) construction of a new residential complex or a part thereof; or (d) completion and finishing services, repair, alteration, renovation or restoration of, or similar services, in relation to (b) and (c); or (e) turnkey projects including engineering, proc .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... irrigation, water supply or for sewerage disposal, when provided to Government/Government undertakings would be for non-commercial, non-industrial purposes, even when executed under turnkey/EPC contractual mode and would fall within the ambit of clause (b), Explanation (ii) of Section 65(105)(zzzza); and would consequently not be exigible to Service Tax, in view of the exclusion enacted in clause (b); and 10. A Division Bench of the Tribunal in Angraj Civil Projects Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise Service Tax, Lucknow [2020 (34) GSTL 574 (Tri.-All)], after making reference to the aforesaid Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in Lanco Infratech Ltd., also held that the activity of laying of pipeline would not be for the p .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates