News Update

Income tax hands over Rs 1700 Cr tax demand to Congress PartyGST - Neither SCN nor the order spell out the reasons for retrospective cancellation of registration, hence cannot be sustained: HCStage-2 of Vikram-1 orbital rocket successfully test-firedGST - Non-application of mind - If reply was unsatisfactory, details could have been sought - Record does not reflect that such exercise was done - Matter remitted: HCHouthis claim UK has not capability to intercept their hypersonic missilesGST - Merely because a taxpayer has not filed returns for some period does not mean that registration is required to be cancelled with retrospective date also covering the period when returns were filed and taxpayer was compliant: HCIsraeli forces kill 200 Palestinians at Gaza medical complex & arrest over 1000GST - Petitioner's reply, although terse, is not taken into account while passing assessment orders - Petitioner put on terms, another opportunity provided: HCUnveil One Nation; One Debt Code; One Compliance Rule for Centre & StatesChina moves WTO against US tax subsidies for EVs & renewable energyMore on non-doms - The UK Spring Budget 2024 (See TII Edit)Notorious history-sheeter Mukhtar Ansari succumbs to cardiac arrest in UP jailTraining Program for Cambodian civil servants commences at MussoorieNY imposes USD 15 congestion taxCBIC revises tariff value of edible oils, gold & silver45 killed as bus races into ravine in South AfricaCBIC directs all Customs offices to remain open on Saturday & SundayBankman-Fried jailed for 25 yrs in FTX scamI-T- Once the citizen deposits the tax upon coming to know of his liability, it cannot be said that he has deliberately or willfully evaded the depositing of tax and interest in terms of Section 234A can be waived: HCHouthis attack continues in Red Sea; US military shoots down 4 dronesFederal Govt hands out USD 60 mn to rebuild collapsed bridge in BaltimoreI-T - Receipts of sale of scrap being part & parcel of activity and being proximate thereto would also be within ambit of gains derived from industrial undertaking for purpose of computing deduction u/s 80-IB: HCCanadian School Boards sue social media titans for 4 bn Canadian dollar in damagesFormer IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt jailed for 20 yrs for planting drugs to frame lawyerCus - No Cess is payable when Basic Customs Duty is found to be Nil: CESTAT
 
ST - In respect of any contract which is a composite contract, service tax cannot be demanded under CICS/CCS for periods also after 1.6.2007: CESTAT

 

By TIOL News Service

CHENNAI, SEPT 18, 2018: THE appellants are involved in the activity of constructing commercial and residential projects and were issued SCNs alleging short-payment of service tax under Commercial or Industrial Construction Services.

After 1.6.2007, although they discharged service tax under Works Contract services under the Composition scheme, for three of their four projects, the department was of the view that such payment is not proper for the reason that the services cannot be classified as Works Contract Service and also because appellants have not exercised their option for payment of service tax under Works Contract (Composition Scheme for Payment of Service Tax) Rules, 2007 by intimating the department as required.

Demands were issued and confirmed by the adjudicating authority along with imposition of penalty and interest.

The appellants are before the CESTAT.

After considering the elaborate submissions made, the CESTAT relied upon the apex court decision in Larsen & Toubro Ltd.- 2015-TIOL-187-SC-ST and after extracting the ratio laid down there under inter alia observed -

On Merits:

+ In the present appeal also, there is no dispute that the construction activities are in the nature of composite works contract. The appellants being involved in the construction of the same projects prior to and after 1.6.2007, for example, even in the show cause notice dated 20.10.2009, taxable value has been calculated at 33% of gross amount received, which is an implicit admission that that activity involved both material supply as well as value services.

+ Based on the Hon'ble Apex Court judgment in Larsen & Toubro, such composite works contract then will not be liable to service tax levy prior to 1.6.2007.

+ On the same ratio, such composite contracts even for the period after 1.6.2007 disputed in these appeals will still have to be held as composite works contract only and not pure service simpliciter contracts that could be classified under commercial or industrial construction service, or construction of complex service.

+ To put in another way, to merit being classified as CICS or CCS, the service provider concerned will be rendering only service simpliciter without any other element in them namely without any material or goods supply involved.

+ The activities of the appellants will, therefore, continue to be in the nature of composite works contract services and hence even after 1.6.2007 for the periods disputed in these appeals they cannot be brought within the fold of commercial or industrial construction service or construction of complex service as proposed in the show cause notices and confirmed in the impugned orders.

+ Our view is supported by the fact that the method/scheme for discharging service tax on the service portion of composite contract was introduced only in 2007.

The following case laws were also relied upon by the CESTAT wherein similar conclusions were drawn viz. Swadeshi Construction Company - 2018-TIOL-1096-CESTAT-DEL , Skyway Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. - 2018-TIOL-360-CESTAT-MUM , URC Construction (P) Ltd. 2017-TIOL-1214-CESTAT-MAD and Logos Construction Pvt. Ltd.- 2018-TIOL-2716-CESTAT-MAD.

Opting for Composition Scheme:

As regards the demand raised on the ground that the appellants did not intimate the department about their intention to opt for payment of service tax under composition scheme under Works Contract Service, the CESTAT observed that in the cases of Vaishno Associates - 2018-TIOL-1486-CESTAT-DEL & Bridge & Roof Co. Ltd. - 2018-TIOL-309-CESTAT-DEL, the CESTAT, Delhi had considered this issue and held that for the sole reason of not filing the intimation opting to pay service tax under Works Contract Service, Composition Scheme, the demand cannot sustain.

In fine, the impugned orders were set aside and the appeals were allowed with consequential benefits.

(See 2018-TIOL-2867-CESTAT-MAD)


POST YOUR COMMENTS
   

AR not Afar by SK Rahman

TIOL Tube Latest

Shri Shailendra Kumar, Trustee, TIOL Trust, giving welcome speech at TIOL Awards 2023




Shri M C Joshi, Former Chairman, CBDT




Address by Shri Buggana Rajendranath, Hon'ble Finance Minister of Andhra Pradesh at TIOL Awards 2023