2025 (7) TMI 565 - AT - Service Tax

Levy of service tax under construction of complex service for the period from February 2009 to July 2010 or not - Scope of SCN - rendering of Works Contract Services (WCS) whereas the SCN has raised demand under a different classification of construction of complex services - HELD THAT - This Tribunal in the case of M/S. R.E. CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF GST AND CENTRAL EXCISE CHENNAI 2025 (6) TMI 766 - CESTAT CHENNAI involving similar facts and circumstances had analysed the issue whether the demand under construction of residential complex services is sustainable in services which are of composite in nature. After introduction of Works Contract Services the demand can be made only under Works Contract Services in the case of construction services which are composite in nature. The impugned Order upholding the impugned order in original of the adjudicating authority confirming the demand under construction of complex service together with demand of appropriate interest and penalties imposed is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside - Appeal allowed.

Summary

The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal are:

1. Whether the appellant's activities of constructing residential complexes from February 2009 to July 2010 are exigible to service tax under the category of "construction of complex service" as defined under the Finance Act, 1994.

2. Whether the demand for service tax raised under the classification of construction of complex service prior to 1-7-2010 is sustainable, given that the definition of "works contract service" was amended effective 1-7-2010 to include construction of residential complexes.

3. Whether the appellant's services, being composite in nature involving both transfer of goods and provision of services, fall under "works contract service" rather than "construction of complex service" or "commercial or industrial construction service" for the relevant period.

4. Whether penalties imposed under section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 are justified in light of the appellant's bona fide belief regarding non-taxability and the prevailing confusion in the trade.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis

Issue 1: Exigibility of Service Tax under Construction of Complex Service for the Period February 2009 to July 2010

Legal Framework and Precedents: The Finance Act, 1994, defines various taxable services including "construction of complex service" (section 65(105)(zzzq)) and "works contract service" (section 65(105)(zzzza)). Prior to 1-7-2010, the definition of works contract service did not explicitly include construction of residential complexes. The Board's Circular No. 108/2/2009-ST dated 28.01.2009 provided certain clarifications and exclusions regarding taxability of construction services.

The Supreme Court judgment in Commissioner of Central Excise v. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. (2015) clarified that service tax on construction services applies only to pure service activities and not to composite contracts involving transfer of property in goods. The Court held that composite contracts fall under works contract service, which includes transfer of goods along with services.

Tribunal decisions such as Real Value Promoters Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise (2018) and Jain Housing & Construction Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax (2023) have applied this principle, holding that demands under construction of complex service or commercial/industrial construction service are unsustainable for composite contracts.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the appellant's construction activities were composite contracts involving both materials and services. The show cause notice itself allowed 67% abatement, recognizing the composite nature of the service. The appellant did not dispute that materials like cement, steel, and bricks were used in construction.

The Tribunal relied on the Larsen & Toubro judgment and subsequent decisions to hold that prior to 1-7-2010, composite contracts cannot be taxed under construction of complex service. Such contracts are taxable only under works contract service, which was not the classification used in the show cause notice or adjudication.

Since the demand was raised under construction of complex service for the period prior to 1-7-2010, the Tribunal found the demand unsustainable.

Key Evidence and Findings: The appellant produced a Chartered Accountant certificate confirming the composite nature of the contracts. The appellant was paying tax under works contract service for prior periods and had not charged service tax on construction services from February 2009 onwards based on the Board's Circular No. 108/2/2009-ST.

The show cause notice and adjudication demanded tax under construction of complex service, not works contract service, which was a critical distinction.

Application of Law to Facts: Applying the Larsen & Toubro principle, the Tribunal held that composite contracts involving transfer of goods and services fall under works contract service. The demand under construction of complex service for the period before 1-7-2010 is invalid because the definition of works contract service was amended only from that date to include residential complexes.

The Tribunal also emphasized that the classification of service tax demand must align with the allegations in the show cause notice and cannot be altered during adjudication or appeal.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The appellant argued that the demand was raised under an incorrect service category and that prior to 1-7-2010, construction of residential complexes was not taxable under construction of complex service. The respondent maintained that the appellant was liable for service tax under construction of complex service.

The Tribunal sided with the appellant, relying on binding Supreme Court precedent and consistent Tribunal decisions, rejecting the respondent's demand.

Conclusion: The demand for service tax under construction of complex service for the period from February 2009 to July 2010 is unsustainable and liable to be set aside.

Issue 2: Sustainability of Demand Prior to 1-7-2010 in Light of Amendment to Definition of Works Contract Service

Legal Framework and Precedents: The Finance Act, 1994 was amended effective 1-7-2010 by inserting an explanation in sub-clause (zzzh) of clause (105) of section 65, expanding the definition of works contract service to explicitly include construction of residential complexes. This amendment clarified the taxability of such services post that date.

Tribunal decisions cited by the appellant, including Real Value Promoters Pvt. Ltd. and Central Park West Venture, have held that prior to this amendment, construction of residential complexes could not be taxed under construction of complex service or works contract service as defined.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal observed that the demand period falls entirely before 1-7-2010, when the amended definition came into effect. Therefore, the appellant's activities could not be taxed under the expanded definition of works contract service including construction of residential complexes.

The Tribunal noted that the appellant's reliance on the Board's Circular and the absence of service tax payment from February 2009 onwards was consistent with the legal position prevailing before the amendment.

Key Evidence and Findings: The appellant's service period was from October 2005 to March 2010, with the disputed demand for February 2009 to July 2010. The amendment came into force only on 1-7-2010. The appellant's failure to pay service tax for the disputed period was based on the pre-amendment understanding and Board's Circular.

Application of Law to Facts: Since the amendment defining works contract service to include construction of residential complexes was effective only from 1-7-2010, the demand for service tax under construction of complex service prior to that date is unsustainable.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The appellant argued that the demand was not sustainable as the taxable category did not exist for the disputed period. The respondent argued otherwise but failed to rebut the binding precedents and statutory timeline.

Conclusion: The demand prior to 1-7-2010 under construction of complex service is not sustainable as the amended definition was not in force during the disputed period.

Issue 3: Classification of Services Rendered by the Appellant as Composite Works Contract Service versus Construction of Complex Service

Legal Framework and Precedents: The Supreme Court in Larsen & Toubro Ltd. held that pure service contracts are taxable under construction of complex service or commercial/industrial construction service, whereas composite contracts involving transfer of property in goods and services fall under works contract service.

Section 65A of the Finance Act mandates that classification of taxable services must be based on specific entries, and the more specific description is preferred. Circular 128/10/2010 clarifies the classification principles.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal recognized that the appellant's contracts were composite in nature, involving transfer of materials and provision of construction services. The appellant did not supply materials to clients; rather, the materials were used by the appellant in execution of the contract.

Since the show cause notice demanded tax under construction of complex service, and not under works contract service, the Tribunal held that the demand was not legally sustainable. The adjudicating authority and appellate authority could not alter the category of service for which demand was raised.

Key Evidence and Findings: The appellant produced a Chartered Accountant certificate confirming the composite nature of contracts. The show cause notice allowed abatement, indicating recognition of composite contracts.

Application of Law to Facts: Applying the Larsen & Toubro principle and classification rules, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant's services fall under works contract service, not construction of complex service, for the disputed period. The demand raised under construction of complex service is therefore invalid.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The appellant argued that the demand under construction of complex service was misplaced and the correct classification was works contract service. The respondent maintained the demand under construction of complex service. The Tribunal rejected the respondent's position based on legal precedents and classification principles.

Conclusion: The appellant's services are composite works contract services and not construction of complex service. The demand under construction of complex service is unsustainable.

Issue 4: Imposition of Penalties in View of Bona Fide Belief and Confusion in Trade

Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 provides for penalty equivalent to the amount of service tax payable. However, judicial decisions, including Principal Commissioner of GST and C.Ex, Chennai v. C Kamalakannan (2018), have held that penalties should not be imposed where the assessee had a bona fide belief about non-taxability and there was genuine confusion in the trade or the Department itself.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the appellant's non-payment of service tax was based on the Board's Circular and prevailing confusion regarding the taxability of construction services during the relevant period. The appellant had not charged service tax from clients and had acted in good faith.

Given that the demand itself was unsustainable, the Tribunal found no justification for imposing penalties.

Key Evidence and Findings: The appellant's reliance on Circular No. 108/2/2009-ST and production of CA certificate supported the bona fide belief. The appellant's conduct indicated no willful evasion.

Application of Law to Facts: Since the demand was set aside on merits, and the appellant had bona fide belief supported by Circular and judicial precedents, penalties were not warranted.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The appellant urged waiver of penalties on grounds of bona fide belief and trade confusion. The respondent sought to uphold penalties. The Tribunal sided with the appellant.

Conclusion: Penalties imposed under section 78 are set aside.

Significant Holdings

"The services provided by the appellant in respect of the projects executed by them for the period prior to 1.6.2007 being in the nature of composite works contract cannot be brought within the fold of commercial or industrial construction service or construction of complex service in the light of the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in Larsen & Toubro (supra) upto 1.6.2007."

"For the period after 1.6.2007, service tax liability under category of 'commercial or industrial construction service' under Section 65(105)(zzzh) ibid, 'Construction of Complex Service' under Section 65(105)(zzzq) will continue to be attracted only if the activities are in the nature of services simpliciter."

"For activities of construction of new building or civil structure or new residential complex etc. involving indivisible composite contract, such services will require to be exigible to service tax liabilities under 'Works Contract Service' as defined under section 65(105)(zzzza) ibid."

"The show cause notices in all these cases prior to 1.6.2007 and subsequent to that date for the periods in dispute, proposing service tax liability on the impugned services involving composite works contract, under 'Commercial or Industrial Construction Service' or 'Construction of Complex' Service, cannot therefore sustain."

"In view of the above, the demand raised in the impugned Order-in-Appeal No. 282/2015 (STA-II) dated 28.10.2015 passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax is not sustainable. No need to discuss about justifiability for invoking larger period as the Appellant succeeds on merits. As such, penalties imposed are also set aside."

The Tribunal conclusively held that the demand of service tax under construction of complex service for the period February 2009 to July 2010 is unsustainable because the appellant's services were composite in nature and the amended definition including residential complexes in works contract service was effective only from 1-7-2010. The penalty imposed was also set aside due to bona fide belief and prevailing confusion. The impugned orders confirming the demand and penalties were set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.