9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 970X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en in such cases, service tax would be leviable, if the activity undertaken falls within the ambit of a taxable service. Thus the circular exempts activities that are mandatory statutory obligations with fees deposited into the Government Treasury. Since the fees collected by APMCs were directed to the Market Committee Fund and not the Treasury, the exemption did not apply.' The Court further noted that language used in circular of 2006 is clear and unambiguous. Applying the principles of interpretation of statutes, the Court observed that, "It is settled law that the notification has to be read as a whole. If any of the conditions laid down in the notification is not fulfilled, the party is not entitled to the benefit of that notification. An exception and/or an exempting provision in a taxing statute should be construed strictly and it is not open to the court to ignore the conditions prescribed in the relevant policy and the exemption notifications issued in that regard" - After carefully perusing the words used in S. 9, the Court stated that the activity cannot be said to be a mandatory statutory activity as contended by appellants since the fee collected is not deposited ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dquo;Construction of Commercial/Industrial Service‟. The Department also observed that the activities carried out by the appellant in respect of construction of roads are fully exempted from the definition of CICS under Commercial and Industrial Construction Service (CICS) under section 65 (25 b) of the Finance Act and also in terms of the clarification issued by CBEC in para 13.04 of Circular No.80/10/2004 dated 17.09.2004. For the same reason the construction of compound wall for JDA was also observed to be outside the levy of service tax. Similarly, the services provided in respect of management maintenance or repairs of roads of non-commercial government buildings were also found to be exempted in view of Notification No.24/2009 dated 27.07.2009 and also in view of Notification No.25/2012 dated 20th June, 2012. However, the services as that of construction of compound wall, maintenance and repair of roads and construction of bridges for RIICO and RASMB and even to the private parties like M/s. Parul Construction and M/s. Prakash Asphalting and Toll Highways India Ltd. the department formed an opinion that these entities being engaged in commercial activities, hence, the e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... impressed upon the Boards Circular No.B1/6/2005-TRU dated 27.07.2005 wherein it prescribes a condition that if the construction of a commercial complex and its roads is considered a single contract service tax would be applicable to the gross amount charged for the entire construction including the roads. It is also submitted that in the instant case the appellant did not provide any documentary evidence to support the separation of road construction from the overall commercial construction services. Hence, the benefit of exclusion provided in the definition of commercial or industrial construction does not at all arises. With these submissions and impressing upon no infirmity in the order under challenge, the appeal is prayed to be dismissed. 4. Having heard the department, perusing the appeal record including reply to SCN and the grounds of appeal in the appeal memo, we observe that the issue involved in the present appeal is about the tax liability of the service provider providing „Commercial and Industrial Construction Service‟ to the public authorities. The period involved herein is post 1st July, 2007. Hence section 66D, the negative list of services is applica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion and/or an exempting provision in a taxing statute should be construed strictly and it is not open to the court to ignore the conditions prescribed in the relevant policy and the exemption notifications issued in that regard". The Court observed that the contention of the appellants stating that the activity of rent/lease/allotment of shop/land/platform/space is a statutory activity and the Market Committees are performing their statutory duties under S. 9 hence the entitlement to exemption, holds no substance. After carefully perusing the words used in S. 9, the Court stated that the activity cannot be said to be a mandatory statutory activity as contended by appellants since the fee collected is not deposited into the Government Treasury; it will go to the Market Committee Fund and will be used by the market committees. Thus such a fee collected cannot have the characteristics of the statutory levy/statutory fee. Thus, under the 1961 Act, it cannot be said to be a mandatory statutory obligation of the Market Committees to provide shop/land/platform on rent/lease. "If the statute mandates that the Market Committees have to provide the land/shop/platform/space on rent/lease then ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
