Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2019 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (11) TMI 788 - AT - Service TaxServices provided to Governmental Authorities - Business Auxiliary Service - Works Contract Service - proviso to Section 73(1) of Finance Act - HELD THAT - The authorities below have given a specific finding that MNNIT, MLNMC, IIIT and RGIPT were governmental authorities as they were set up by Acts of Parliament and State Legislature and the said finding has not been controverted by Revenue in appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals) has given a detailed finding on all the aspects and Revenue has not raised any ground to interfere in the impugned order of the authorities below. The Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon the Hon ble Patna High Court decision in the case of Shapoorji Paloonji Company Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Patna 2016 (3) TMI 832 - PATNA HIGH COURT - Revenue s ground is that the said decision of the Hon ble Patna High Court stands challenged by them before the Hon ble Apex Court. However, we note that there is no stay of operation of the said order and as such the same still holds the fields. There are no justifiable reasons to interfere in the impugned order of the authorities below - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues:
1. Appeal against order upholding service tax demand. 2. Services provided to governmental authorities. 3. Exemption under Notification No.25/12-ST. 4. Legal interpretation of 'governmental authorities'. Analysis: 1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the service tax demand. The Revenue contended that the services provided by the respondent fell under the category of 'Cleaning Services', proposing a demand of ?80,45,016 for the period October 2011 to 2014-15. The respondent argued that the services provided were exempted under Notification No.25/12-ST and were primarily for educational institutions and other governmental authorities. 2. The Adjudicating Authority held that the services provided by the respondent to various institutions like MNNIT, MLNMC, IIIT, and RGIPT were exempted under specific notifications. The Commissioner (Appeals) also upheld this decision, noting that these institutions were 'governmental authorities' as they were established by Acts of Parliament and State Legislature. The Revenue challenged this finding, but the appellate tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the lower authorities' decision. 3. The tribunal observed that the Commissioner (Appeals) had provided detailed reasoning for the exemption of services provided to governmental authorities under specific notifications. The tribunal also referenced legal precedents from the Hon’ble Patna High Court and Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court to support the decision. The Revenue's argument that the Patna High Court decision was challenged before the Apex Court was dismissed since there was no stay on the operation of the order, making it applicable. 4. In conclusion, the tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, citing the established status of the institutions as governmental authorities and the lack of grounds to overturn the lower authorities' decision. The tribunal emphasized the importance of legal interpretations and upheld the exemption granted to the respondent for services provided to governmental authorities under specific notifications.
|