Latest - TMI e-Newsletter
New User/ Regiser
2022 (9) TMI 1004 - Service Tax
Levy of Service tax - commissioning and installation services - composite works contract - separate species of contracts known to trade or not - HELD THAT:- It is undisputed that the contracts which the respondent had entered into involved both rendering of services and supply/ deemed supply of goods while rendering the services. Such services are composite contracts and are classifiable as works contract which, according to Gannon Dunkerley & Co. [1992 (11) TMI 254 - SUPREME COURT] is a subject species of contract.
Revenue’s objection that Gannon Dunkerley & Co. judgment was rendered in a matter dealing with sales tax and, hence, should not apply to decide whether a service is a works contract service cannot be accepted. Whether it is a question of sales tax or service tax, the nature of the contract, i.e., whether it is for supply of goods or for rendering services or a combination of both does not change. Wherever there is a composite contract it is a works contract service. Such services can be classified only under the head of “works contract” service w.e.f. 01.07.2012 under section 65 (105) (zzzza) and were not taxable prior to this date as per the judgment of Supreme Court in Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Kerala versus Larsen & Toubro Ltd. [2015 (8) TMI 749 - SUPREME COURT] Since the entire period in this case was prior to 01.07.2012, the services rendered by the respondent were not taxable.
The contention of the Revenue that even works contract should be classified as ECIS because it is a most specific service cannot be accepted for the simple reason works contracts cannot be treated as services simplicitor which are classifiable under various sub-clauses of clause 105 of section 65.
The respondent was not liable to pay service tax on the services in dispute and the impugned order is correct and proper and calls for no interference - Appeal of Revenue dismissed.