2025 (6) TMI 1969 - AT - Service Tax

Classification of service - Completion and Finishing Service or Works Contract service - eligibility to avail the benefit of N/N.12/2003-ST dated 20.06.2003 - discharge of service tax liability or not - HELD THAT - It is an admitted fact that appellant was paying service tax during the period of dispute but excluded the value of goods on which VAT was paid by them. Even though the activity was classified by them under the category of Interior Decorators and Commercial or Industrial Construction Service the appellant was paying service tax by opting the scheme as per the State VAT Rules and also submitted evidence regarding payment of VAT on the value of goods/materials during the relevant period and paid service tax on the balance amount. Further as evident from the ST-3 returns filed and relied by the appellant shows the value of works contract service and the value of material separately. Fact being so alleging that the appellant had violated the provision of law is prima facie unsustainable. Considering the same the classification of the activity by the adjudicating authority under works contract service is confirmed. Further the appellant was paying service tax by opting the scheme as per the State VAT Rules and also submitted evidence regarding payment of VAT against the value of goods/materials during the relevant period and paid service tax on the balance amount. Following the judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in Safety Retreading Co. Pvt. Ltd. 2017 (1) TMI 1110 - SUPREME COURT once payment is made on the goods portion under VAT and the value of the goods covered on such VAT paid value of goods has to be excluded. Thus the appellant fully discharged the service tax liability. Appeal disposed off.

Summary

The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal include whether the appellant's activity qualifies as 'Completion and Finishing Service' under Section 65(105)(zzq) of the Finance Act, 1994, whether the appellant is entitled to the benefit of Notification No.12/2003-ST dated 20.06.2003, and whether the service tax demand raised on the appellant is justified, particularly regarding the inclusion or exclusion of the value of goods consumed in providing the service.

Regarding the classification of the appellant's activity, the Tribunal examined whether the appellant's operations fall within the ambit of 'works contract service' or 'completion and finishing service' as contended by the Revenue. The appellant contended that their activity is a works contract, duly paying VAT on goods consumed under the Karnataka VAT Act, 2004, and paying service tax only on the balance amount. The appellant further argued that the demand on the gross amount, including the value of goods, is ultra vires the charging provisions under Section 65 of the Finance Act. The appellant relied on Circular F.No.B1/16/2007-TRU dated 22.05.2007, which clarifies that contracts treated as works contracts for VAT purposes must also be treated as works contracts for service tax purposes.

The Tribunal noted the appellant's registration under the category of 'Interior Decorations and Commercial or Industrial Service' but found that the appellant had paid service tax excluding the value of goods on which VAT was paid. The appellant submitted VAT assessment orders and ST-3 returns evidencing separate valuation of materials and services. The Tribunal found that the appellant's classification and payment pattern were consistent with the legal framework governing works contract services and VAT.

In addressing the applicability of Notification No.12/2003-ST dated 20.06.2003, the Tribunal considered whether the appellant fulfilled the conditions for availing the benefit, specifically documentary proof indicating the value of goods and materials consumed. The Revenue contended that the appellant failed to comply with these conditions, justifying the confirmation of demands with interest and penalties. However, the appellant demonstrated through VAT assessment orders and returns that VAT was paid on the goods portion, which under established jurisprudence, mandates exclusion of the value of goods from the service tax base.

The Tribunal extensively relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in Safety Retreading Co. Pvt. Ltd., which held that where VAT is paid on the goods portion, the value of such goods must be excluded from the service tax valuation. This principle was pivotal in the Tribunal's reasoning, reinforcing that the appellant's payment of VAT on the goods portion justified exclusion of that value from the service tax base. The Tribunal also referenced other authoritative decisions supporting the appellant's position, including Total Environment Building Systems P. Ltd. vs. DCCT, CCE vs. Height Consultants, and Larsen & Toubro Ltd. vs. CCE, which collectively affirm the treatment of works contracts and the exclusion of VAT-paid goods value from service tax computation.

The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument that the appellant's failure to obtain registration specifically under 'works contract service' invalidated their entitlement to the benefit. It held that the appellant's payment of service tax under the category of 'Interior Decorations and Commercial or Industrial Service' on the net amount (excluding VAT-paid goods) was consistent with the statutory scheme and judicial precedents. The Tribunal emphasized that classification under 'works contract service' was appropriate and confirmed the appellant's compliance with service tax obligations.

On the issue of whether the demand raised on the gross amount including goods' value was sustainable, the Tribunal concluded that such a demand was prima facie unsustainable. It held that the appellant had discharged the service tax liability correctly by excluding the value of goods on which VAT was paid, in line with the Supreme Court's ruling. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal related to the period from 16.06.2005 to 31.03.2010 fully, and partially allowed the appeals concerning subsequent periods by upholding the classification under works contract service while recognizing the appellant's payment of service tax on the net amount.

In summary, the Tribunal's significant holdings include the following:

"Following the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Safety Retreading Co. Pvt. Ltd., once payment is made on the goods portion under VAT and the value of the goods covered on such VAT paid, value of goods has to be excluded."

The Tribunal established the core principle that where VAT is paid on the goods portion of a works contract, the value of such goods must be excluded from the service tax valuation base under the Finance Act. It further clarified that classification of service as 'works contract service' should align with VAT treatment, and that failure to obtain specific registration under 'works contract service' does not invalidate the appellant's entitlement to benefits if the payment pattern and documentary evidence comply with statutory requirements.

Final determinations were that the appellant's activity constituted works contract service, the value of goods on which VAT was paid must be excluded from service tax computation, and the appellant had correctly discharged service tax liability accordingly. The demands raised on the gross amount including goods' value were set aside or partially modified, with penalties and interest imposed by the adjudicating authority being accordingly adjusted.