9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 316X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... An intelligence was gathered by Preventive Branch, Bhopal that service tax liability was not being discharged by the appellant. As per the balance sheet for the year 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 and the copies of the agreement with their customers, the appellant was providing taxable services to various builders for providing civil work like construction of WBW road, CC Road, sewer line, Water Supply drainage, Sump Well, Overhead Tank, Septic Tank, Boundry Wall, Entrance Gate and garden, etc. These services were provided in the private colonies developed by such builders. As per agreement, the appellant provided WCS for construction of the above stated work for the builders within a residential complex/commercial premises. On scrutiny of Balance Sheet for the period from 2011-2012 to 2014-2015, it revealed that appellant had received 27,17,19,803 (inclusive of service tax) from their customers for which they had failed to discharge their service tax liability on net amount of Rs.25,90,51,658/- received by them out of which total taxable value was calculated to tune of Rs.10,36,20,663/- on which service tax of Rs.1,26,68,147/- (including cess) had been short paid by the appellant. Accord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the body of people at large sufficiently defined by some common quality of public or impersonal nature; 6. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the roads constructed within a residential/commercial premises would be used by the residents as well as by the outsiders visiting the premises. Therefore, it is not correct to say that the roads constructed were not meant for use by "General Public" as enunciated in the notification and further as per the definition of the term "General Public". According to the learned counsel, the appellant is entitled to exemption under the aforesaid notification. The learned counsel has also referred to the decisions in the following cases:- (a) United Rail Road Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCT, Secuderabad 2021 (45) GSTL 290 (Tri.-Hyd.) (b) Murari Lal Singhal Vs. CCE & ST, Jaipur-I 2019 (25) GSTL 45 (Tri.-Del) (c) Commissioner of Customs & C.Ex, Raipur Vs. National Project Construction Corpn. Ltd. 2020 (42) GSTL 75 (Tri.-Del.) 7. Per contra, the learned Authorised Representative for the Department has submitted that the appellant is not entitled to the exemption inasmuch as the same is restricted to the nature of its u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... "(54) "Works Contract" means a contract wherein transfer of property in goods involved in the execution of such contract is leviable to tax as sale of goods and such contract is for the purpose of carrying out construction, erection, commissioning, installation, completion, fitting out, repair, maintenance, renovation, alternation of any movable or immovable property or for carrying out any other similar activity or a part thereof in relation to such property." 10. Considering the provisions of Section 65B(54) defining "Works Contract", it is clear that the construction of roads are not specifically excluded therein. It is by virtue of notification no.25/2012 that the construction, erection, commissioning, installation, completion, fitting out, repair, maintenance, renovation or alteration of roads is exempted from levy of service tax, provided, which are used for "general public" since the exemption provided under the notification for construction of roads is very specific, we need to examine whether the "WCS" rendered by the appellant fall within the exemption clause requiring the construction for the use of "general public". The services provided by the appellant to the buil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd the scope of the notification exempting the construction of roads for use by general public and as per the Rules of interpretation the exemption notification has to be construed strictly. Considering the activity of construction of roads by the appellant for the development of the township/residential complexes on behalf of the builders/ developers is specifically meant for the buyers of the plots/residential/commercial complexes and the same cannot be termed for the use of the general public in the sense it has been provided in the notification. Hence the appellant is not entitle to claim exemption from levy of service tax under the notification. 11. In addition to the notification, we find that CBEC had issued Master Circular D.O.F. No. 334/1/2012-TRU dated 16.03.2012 where it has been clarified that construction of roads for use by general public is exempt from service tax. Construction of roads which are not meant for general public use e.g. construction of roads in a factory, residential complex, etc would be taxable. This itself clarifies that the exemption in respect of construction of roads is not available where they are not meant for general public use whereas the ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he activity being undertaken by them (type of service) and to substantiate the liability assessment under Reverse Charge Mechanism. Here also theparty kept the department in dark. e. In view of the foregoing facts and reliability of the Balance sheets (No return +Bal Sheet filed with Income Tax), it was mandatory for the department to safeguard Government Revenue by taking sales figures during the year, Advances received from customers, work inprogress and closing stock together for ascertainment of service tax liability for the years 2011-12 to 2014-15. Moreover, the party had not filed service tax returns (ST 3) at all assessing their own taxable value and liability which was a statutory requirement. The case was found to be an attempt of complete eyewash. f. The department exhausted all steps and actions to procure the documents required for the completion of the investigation. The party was so elusive that no reply to the SCN was filed by them and on being given Personal Hearing for 15.2.17, 23.2.17, 9.3.17 and 27.3.2017 (different dates) they neither attended hearing nor sought any adjournment. g. It has been held in the 010, that (i) the party refused to honour the summ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... determined.
Appeal No.ST/50630 of 2018
15. The facts and the issue involved in the said appeal is absolutely identical to the Appeal No.ST/50378 of 2018. In the present case also, the appellant was engaged in providing services of "Works Contract Services" and had provided taxable services of alike nature as in the above appeal. On the allegations that the said services provided by the appellant being beyond the purview of Sl.No.13 of Notification No.25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012, as they have provided these services to various residential complex services providers and are not for use of general public. Show cause notice dated 17.01.2017 was affirmed by the Order-in-Original dated 22.05.2017. The appeal filed by the appellant was rejected by the Order-in-Appeal No.23- 24/TPS/PC/CGST/DSC/2020-21 dated 21.10.2020. Hence, this appeal has been filed.
16. In view of our discussion above and the conclusion arrived at, the present appeal also deserves to be dismissed. The appeal is, accordingly dismissed.
17. We, therefore, affirm the findings arrived at in the impugned order. Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed.
[ Order pronounced on 4th April, 2025 ] X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
