2024 (5) TMI 1575 - AT - Service Tax

Taxability of various services provided by the appellant - dredging services or works contract services - what the intention of the contracting parties were while entering into the contract? Whether the service is classifiable as a dredging service (Revenue) or a works contract (RPP)? - HELD THAT - The legal issue is obvious and trite that a subject is not taxable by inference or by analogy but only by the plain words of a statute applicable to the facts and circumstances of the individual case. From the above description it is seen that the service tax recipients were seeking the services of RPP for construction of drainage canals and bunds on the bank of water bodies as a flood protection measure; for construction of permanent flood protection works; clearing scrub jungle and levelling the site; improvements to canals and construction of arterial drains and construction of stormwater drains. The removal of any material including silt sediments rocks etc was incidental to the main activity. In MacIntosh Burn vs Commissioner of Service Tax Kolkata 2010 (5) TMI 435 - CESTAT KOLKATA the matter related to the scope of work awarded through tender by the Irrigation Department of the West Bengal Government for dredging of river Ichhamati. Since the activity undertaken by RPP does not involve the two essential requirements of the definition of dredging service as discussed above Revenue has failed to prove its case and hence the demand cannot sustain. The appeal of RPP in this matter hence succeed. Works contract services - Residential Construction service - Erection and Commissioning and Installation service - Commercial Construction service - Civil Supplies service - HELD THAT - The legal issue is obvious and trite that a subject is not taxable by inference or by analogy but only by the plain words of a statute / notifications applicable to the facts and circumstances of the individual case. These issues were not directly addressed in the SCN and impugned orders. Since these judgments were not available to the Original Authority nor did the Appellant who has to prove his eligibility for exemption as stated in M/s Dilip Kumar and Company Ors. 2018 (7) TMI 1826 - SUPREME COURT (LB) approach the issue in the said light the matter merits being remanded to the Original Authority for a fresh look and decision there on for the above issues listed in the Order-in-Original and mentioned at from paras 9 11, 12 13 above. While doing so projects in which the department has extended the benefit of abatement from gross amount charged for the said services rendered by RPP in the SCN or OIO will be taken as acceptance by the department of the contracts involving both goods and services and being composite contracts. The relevant provisions of law at the relevant time for composite contracts and discussed above would accordingly be applicable. SEZ unit - HELD THAT - All laws of India are applicable in SEZs unless specifically exempted as per the SEZ Act. The SEZ Act is a self-contained Act where exemptions on taxes duties cess drawbacks and concessions are provided on imports and exports of the goods and on supply of services to the Developers and SEZ units. Sections 7 26 and 50 are the three main provisions of the SEZ Act which allow the SEZ Units to claim the exemptions on duties tax cess and certain drawbacks and concessions. The levy of Service Tax under the FA 1994 is subject to the overriding effect under Section 51 of the SEZ Act. Section 26(1)(e)of the SEZ Act provides exemption from Service Tax under Chapter V of the FA 1994 on taxable services provided to a Developer or Unit to carry on the authorised operations in a Special Economic Zone. The core area covered by the Act thus relates to the SEZ enclave. It would be relevant to state that as per the Apex Court s judgment in Peekay Re-Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner 2007 (3) TMI 356 - SUPREME COURT exemption does not negate a levy of tax altogether. Despite an exemption the liability to tax remains unaffected only the subsequent requirement of payment of tax to fulfil the liability is done away with. Hence when the liability to tax remains unaffected under FA 1994 for units situated in a SEZ notwithstanding the overriding effect under Section 51 of the SEZ Act the question is whether a notification issued under FA 1994 can regulate the manner in which an exemption is availed especially when the services are utilized by the Developer or Unit outside the SEZ enclave which is a penumbra area for the application of the SEZ Act and there is a likelihood of misuse of the exemption. Interior design service - HELD THAT - While any person involved in providing service related to planning design or beautification of space whether man made or otherwise including a landscape designer will be covered under section 65 (59) of the Finance Act 1994 the actual work carried out has not been brought out in the SCN or the impugned order in detail for us to examine and come to a conclusion. The matter in both cases needs to be verified along with the contract / work order to understand the intention of parties are also whether the project involve a Composite Contract. The matter hence merits to be remanded for a decision afresh based on facts and for issue of a reasoned order. Site formation and clearance service - HELD THAT - It is found from the work order of project CPH drainage that the work relates to levelling and grading work and would be rightly classifiable under clause (97A) of section 65 of the Finance Act 1994 as Site Formation and Clear Service. The SCN levels the allegation at para 06 under the heading site formation and clearance etc and also refer to Section 65 (97A) in this regard. Hence it cannot be said that the SCN was defective and incapacitated RPP from giving an effective reply. RPP has not challenged the classification seriously. Their contention is that they have not received any consideration for the same as the progress ended with an arbitral award which did not include the service tax element. A payment or award which is received towards the execution of the contract involving express or implied contractual reciprocity towards supply of specific goods or services constitutes a consideration for a supply and is taxable irrespective of by what name it is called. The argument that the arbitral award did not have a service tax component and is hence not liable to tax is not acceptable as the primary liability to pay tax is on the service provider - the appellant can be given one more opportunity to produce the documents required by the Department and the matter regarding the SIMA contract merits to be remanded for a decision afresh. Conclusion - i) The classification of services as dredging was rejected; services were works contract services. Demands under dredging service were set aside. ii) Composite contracts involving supply of goods and services are taxable only under works contract service from 01.06.2007. Demands under other taxable services for composite contracts prior to that date are unsustainable. Matters remanded for fresh adjudication applying correct classification. iii) Services rendered to governmental authorities as defined under the amended Mega Exemption Notification are exempt subject to conditions. Appeals relating to TNCSC and similar bodies allowed. iv) Exemption for services related to SEZ units allowed where conditions are met. Demands rejected in these cases. v) Matters relating to interior design services and site formation and clearance remanded for fresh adjudication after production of relevant contracts and evidence. Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues Presented and Considered:

The core legal questions considered in these appeals involve the classification and taxability of various services provided by the appellant, M/s RPP Infra Projects Ltd., under the Service Tax regime prior to the introduction of GST. The principal issues include:

1. Whether the services rendered by RPP in various projects qualify as "dredging services" or as works contract services.

2. The applicability and scope of the "works contract service" (WCS) classification, including whether the contracts are composite works contracts liable to tax under WCS or pure service contracts taxable under other service categories like Commercial or Industrial Construction Service (CICS), Residential Complex Service (RCS), or Erection, Commissioning and Installation Service (ECIS).

3. Whether services rendered to government, local authorities, or governmental authorities are exempt from service tax under the Mega Exemption Notification No. 25/2012 and its amendment.

4. The taxability and classification of services related to civil supplies, residential construction, erection and commissioning, commercial construction, interior design, site formation and clearance, and services rendered in Special Economic Zones (SEZs).

5. The validity and applicability of various statutory provisions, notifications, and circulars, including those relating to abatements, composition schemes, and valuation rules.

6. The impact of landmark judicial pronouncements on the interpretation of works contracts, composite contracts, and exemption claims.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of Services: Dredging vs Works Contract

Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 65(36a) of the Finance Act, 1994 defines "dredging" as removal of material from rivers, ports, harbours, backwaters, or estuaries using specialized dredging apparatus. The definition is restrictive and requires both removal of material and relation to specified water bodies. The service tax is leviable on "dredging services" as per Section 65(105)(zzzb).

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal examined the nature of contracts involving removal of slush, mud, and construction of bunds or drains. It found that the contracts primarily involved construction of flood protection works, drainage canals, and bunds rather than removal of material from water bodies by dredging machinery. The activities were incidental earthworks and clearing, not dredging as defined.

Key Findings: The essential elements of dredging-use of dredging apparatus and excavation in specified water bodies-were absent. The contracts related to works contract services rather than dredging.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal distinguished the facts from cases where dredging was clearly involved and held that the Revenue failed to prove the service was dredging. Accordingly, demands classified as dredging services were set aside.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue relied on an inclusive definition and earlier decisions holding dredging services taxable, but the Tribunal emphasized the statutory definition's specificity and the factual matrix of the contracts.

Conclusion: Services rendered by RPP were not dredging services but works contract services. The appeal on this issue succeeded in favor of RPP.

2. Works Contract Service and Composite Contracts

Legal Framework and Precedents: The Finance Act, 1994 was amended on 01.06.2007 to introduce "works contract service" under Section 65(105)(zzzza), covering contracts involving transfer of property in goods along with services. Prior to this, pure service contracts were taxable under categories like CICS, ECIS, or RCS. The Supreme Court in Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. State of Karnataka clarified that works contracts are a distinct species, encompassing contracts involving goods and services. Nagarjuna Construction Co. Ltd. upheld the CBIC circular disallowing reclassification of contracts from prior taxable services to works contract service after 01.06.2007 if service tax was paid before that date.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal recognized that composite contracts involving supply of goods and services are taxable only under works contract service from 01.06.2007 onwards. Prior to that, only pure service contracts were taxable under other categories. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue's attempt to tax composite contracts under CICS, CCS, or RCS prior to 01.06.2007 was contrary to Supreme Court rulings.

Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal found that many of RPP's contracts were composite works contracts involving supply of goods and services. The Revenue had inconsistently allowed abatements, indicating acceptance of composite nature. Further, the Tribunal noted that the burden of proof for alternate classification lies on the Revenue, which was not discharged.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal held that service tax demands under CICS, CCS, RCS for composite contracts prior to 01.06.2007 were unsustainable. Demands must be classified under works contract service if applicable after 01.06.2007. The Tribunal also emphasized that subcontractors are liable to pay service tax even if the main contractor has discharged it, as per Board circulars and the Larger Bench decision in Melange Developers.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue argued that the exemption notifications and abatements sanctioned taxability under other heads, but the Tribunal relied on Supreme Court rulings that levy itself was invalid on composite contracts under those heads before 01.06.2007. The Tribunal also noted the legal uncertainty prior to the Larger Bench ruling, precluding penalty for non-payment.

Conclusion: The Tribunal remanded matters relating to works contract, residential construction, erection and commissioning, and commercial construction for fresh adjudication applying the correct legal position and classification principles. Demands under other heads for composite contracts before 01.06.2007 are unsustainable.

3. Exemption for Services Rendered to Governmental Authorities

Legal Framework and Precedents: Notification No. 25/2012 provides exemption for services rendered to Government, local authorities, or governmental authorities defined under clause 2(s). The definition was amended in 2014 to widen the scope, distinguishing between authorities set up by statute and those established by government with 90% participation. The Supreme Court in Shapoorji Pallonji clarified that authorities set up by statute are exempt without the 90% participation condition.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal analyzed whether recipients of RPP's services qualify as governmental authorities under the notification. It accepted that entities like Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation (TNCSC) are organs of the State and eligible for exemption under entry 14(d) for post-harvest storage infrastructure.

Key Findings: The Tribunal emphasized that exemption depends on the nature of the recipient and the use of the constructed civil structure, requiring predominant use other than commerce or industry. It also noted that the exemption notification's conditions must be strictly complied with.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal found that services rendered to TNCSC and similar bodies qualified for exemption. It remanded other cases for fresh consideration to determine eligibility based on the amended definition and conditions.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue contended that some entities were commercial concerns and not governmental authorities, but the Tribunal deferred detailed findings to the Original Authority on remand.

Conclusion: Exemption claims for services rendered to governmental authorities were accepted in principle for certain projects (e.g., TNCSC), while others were remanded for fresh adjudication applying clarified legal tests.

4. Taxability of Services in SEZs

Legal Framework and Precedents: Notification No. 9/2009 and its amendment No. 15/2009 regulate exemption of service tax for services used in SEZs. The amendment clarified that exemption is available only if services are consumed wholly within the SEZ; otherwise, tax is payable upfront with refund claim possible. The SEZ Act provides overriding exemption provisions for authorized operations within SEZ enclaves.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal acknowledged the Revenue's concern about verifying consumption inside SEZs and the potential for misuse if services are consumed outside. It noted that the SEZ Act's exemptions apply within the enclave and that the notification regulates the manner of exemption availing to prevent misuse.

Key Findings: The Tribunal accepted the exemption claim for services related to Mangalore SEZ pipeline corridor where certificates were produced. It rejected the Revenue's denial for Moser Baer Ltd. based on the amended notification and consistent judicial decisions favoring exemption when conditions are met.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal held that exemption is not denied merely because services are rendered outside the SEZ if they relate to authorized operations. It followed the principle that exemption notifications regulate the manner of availing exemption, not the existence of exemption itself.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue relied on technical grounds of consumption location, while RPP cited judicial precedents supporting exemption. The Tribunal favored the latter view.

Conclusion: Appeals relating to SEZ services succeeded in favor of RPP.

5. Interior Design Services

Legal Framework: Section 65(59) defines interior decoration services including planning, designing, and beautification of spaces.

Court's Interpretation: The Tribunal found that the nature of services rendered was not detailed in the record. It noted the need to examine contracts and ascertain if the services fall within composite contracts or pure interior design.

Conclusion: The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication with opportunity to parties to produce evidence and clarify the nature of services.

6. Site Formation and Clearance Services

Legal Framework: Section 65(97A) covers site formation and clearance services.

Court's Interpretation and Findings: The Tribunal found that levelling and grading works performed by RPP fall within this category. It rejected RPP's contention that the Show Cause Notice was defective for not specifying the category, as the notice referred specifically to site formation and clearance. It also rejected the argument that arbitral awards without explicit service tax component are not taxable, holding that consideration received for services is taxable regardless of nomenclature.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal remanded the matter regarding SIMA contract for fresh decision after production of contract documents by RPP.

7. Appeals by the Department

The Tribunal considered departmental appeals along with those of RPP and incorporated decisions in the respective service-wise discussions.

Significant Holdings:

"The term 'works contract' in Article 366(29A)(b) is amply wide and cannot be confined to a particular understanding of the term or to a particular form. It encompasses a wide range and many varieties of contract. Even if in a contract, besides the obligations of supply of goods and materials and performance of labour and services, some additional obligations are imposed, such contract does not cease to be works contract."

"Composite contracts involving services and goods were liable to tax only with effect from 1st June, 2007 by introduction of Section 65(105)(zzzza) i.e. Works Contract Services. Service contracts prior to 01/06/2007 would cover only pure service contracts."

"The levy itself of service tax on composite contracts under CICS/CCS/RCS prior to 01.06.2007 has been held to be non-existent by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Larsen & Toubro Kerala."

"The amended definition of 'governmental authority' in Notification No. 25/2012 widened the exemption base, and authorities set up by an Act of Parliament or State Legislature are exempt without the 90% participation condition."

"Exemption claimed by SEZ developers or units is regulated by Notification No. 15/2009, which provides for exemption only if services are consumed wholly within the SEZ; otherwise, tax is payable upfront with refund claim."

"Service tax is a tax on taxable activity rendered to a recipient of service and classification of service is to be determined based on the nature of service provided and the intention of the contracting parties."

"Where the burden of proving alternate classification as proposed by the Revenue is not satisfactorily discharged, the classification made by the assessee remains undisturbed."

Final Determinations:

1. The classification of services as dredging was rejected; services were works contract services. Demands under dredging service were set aside.

2. Composite contracts involving supply of goods and services are taxable only under works contract service from 01.06.2007. Demands under other taxable services for composite contracts prior to that date are unsustainable. Matters remanded for fresh adjudication applying correct classification.

3. Services rendered to governmental authorities as defined under the amended Mega Exemption Notification are exempt, subject to conditions. Appeals relating to TNCSC and similar bodies allowed.

4. Exemption for services related to SEZ units allowed where conditions are met. Demands rejected in these cases.

5. Matters relating to interior design services and site formation and clearance remanded for fresh adjudication after production of relevant contracts and evidence.

6. Appeals filed by the Department were considered and disposed of in accordance with the above findings.