TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 1308X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ished in the Gazette of India Extraordinary Part II dated 01.03.2014, wherein Sec 68(1) of the said Act provides that the companies and corporations specified in the Ninth Schedule constituted for the existing State of Andhra Pradesh shall, on and from the appointed day, continue to function in those areas in respect of which they were functioning immediately before that day, subject to the provisions of this section - the aforementioned three entities are carrying out the activities as mentioned in Article 243W read with Twelfth Schedule of the Constitution of India and thus, the Appellant is entitled to exemption under Notification No.25/2012-ST with respect to services provided to these three entities, being WCS. Services provided through the main contractor by the Appellant to APEWIDC - HELD THAT:- It is found from the documents produced in the course of Hearing corroborate that the Appellant has rendered WCS being construction of school buildings, which is exempt under Notification No.25/2012-ST, S.No.12(a) (c) and thus, the Appellant is also entitled to exemption as subcontractor under S.No.29(h) of the said notification. The demand of Rs.16,91,682/- and Rs.3,80,5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vice tax department, for the period 2012-13 to 2016-17, being copies of Form 26AS, IT returns, Balance sheets, Profit Loss Accounts, copy of ST3 returns, copy of challans for service tax paid and soft copy of ledgers with date wise and entry wise details of the transactions. 5. Pursuant to investigation, SCN dated 24.04.2019 was issued relating to the period October 2013 to June 2017, invoking extended period of limitation, demanding service tax under various heads, proposing to deny exemption claimed under Notification No.25/2012-ST, proposing to demand service tax of Rs.5,91,79,565/- including cess and proposal to appropriate the amount of service tax already paid Rs.1,94,35,990/- with further proposal to demand service tax on rent received, Rs.25,72,540/-, with proposal to appropriate Rs.22,94,172/- already paid. Further, demand of Rs.1,36,86,750/- received as sub-contractor from main contractor K. Anantha Rao, for alleged supply of labor work. Further, demand of service tax of Rs.16,91,682/- on alleged supply of manpower with respect to WCS of APEWIDC. Further, demand of Rs.3,80,518/- towards alleged repair work undertaken for APSPHCL on consideration of Rs.25,36,786/-. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cipality under Article 243W of the Constitution. 10. It is the further contention of the Appellant that (i) APEWIDC, (ii) APMSIDC (iii) APSPHCL are governmental authorities as the same have been set up/established by the State Government and are fully under the control of the State Government and are directly controlled by the various Ministries of the State Government and further, are entrusted to carry out the objects as contained in Article 243W of the Constitution of India. Learned Counsel further submits that APEWIDC is a registered society set up by State Government with 100% participation by way of equity and with commitment towards social responsibility to provide services to the people at large without any profit motive. APEWIDC is working for enlargement of literacy levels by providing educational infrastructure facilities among the scholars belonging to weaker sections since 1986, besides construction of ZP High Schools, Government High Schools and Collegiate Education works, Government Polytechnics etc., in building the New Nation after independence. Learned Counsel further urges that APEWIDC is headed by the Managing Director (an IAS Officer) appointed by S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relied on the ruling of the Patna High Court in the case of Shapoorji Paloonji Company Pvt Ltd vs CC, CE ST, Patna [2016 (42) STR 681 (Pat.)], wherein it was held that services for construction of academic block for IIT Patna set up under the IIT Act, 1961, the Assessee was entitled to benefit of exemption under Notification No.25/2012- ST, as IIT was a governmental authority, as defined in Notification No.25/2012- ST read with amendment Notification No.02/2014-ST. 13. The Appellant has also relied on the ruling in the case of Krishi Constructions Pvt Ltd vs CST, Hyderabad [2020 (43) GSTL 236], wherein it was held that various companies/corporations, being service recipients, were established by the Government of Andhra Pradesh under various Acts and/or Government Order and accordingly, held that services have been provided to governmental authority. 14. Learned Counsel further urges that learned Commissioner has erred in holding that Appellant has provided services of construction of IT Towers/Incubation Centres in IT-SEZ at Sarpavaram, Kakinada for which they are not eligible for benefit of exemption under Notification No.40/2012-ST read with Notification No.12/2013-ST, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n, fitting out, repair, maintenance, renovation, alteration of any moveable or immovable property or for carrying out any other similar activity or a part thereof in relation to such property. It is further urged that Appellant had not paid service tax for services provided under Works Contract to APEWIDC, APMSIDC APSPHCL on the ground that they were eligible for exemption under Notification No.25/2012-ST. 18. He further draws attention to clause 26A of Sec 65B of the Finance Act, which reads as follows: Government means the Departments of the Central Government, a State Government and its Departments and a Union territory and its Departments, but shall not include any entity, whether created by a statute or otherwise, the accounts of which are not required to be kept in accordance with Article 150 of the Constitution or the rules made thereunder. This clause was inserted by Finance Act 2015 w.e.f. 14.05.2015. 19. Further urges, Article 150 of the Constitution provides - The Accounts of the Union and of the States shall be kept in such form as the President may, on the advice of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India, prescribe. 20. It is further urged ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... act of provision of taxable service by the sub-contractor. Reliance is also placed on the Larger Bench ruling of this Tribunal in Melange Developers Pvt Ltd [2020 (33) GSTL 116 (Tri-LB)]. 23. So far the Final Order in Krishi Constructions Pvt Ltd vs CST, Hyderabad (supra), relied upon by the Appellant is concerned, learned AR refers to communication received from Assistant Commissioner (Tribunal) Hyderabad- GST Commissionerate vide letter No.V/R/CESTAT/07/2021-Trib(Hyd) dated 05.09.2022, wherein the Final Order of the Tribunal in Krishi Constructions Pvt Ltd, has been accepted by the Commissioner of Central Tax, Hyderabad-CGST Commissionerate on monetary limits. It is further urged that Revenue has not accepted the Final Order of Tribunal in Krishi Constructions on merits. 24. As regards denial of exemption with respect to WCS provided to APIIC, Kakinada (SEZ) with respect to construction of IT Towers etc., exemption has been rightly denied as Appellant has not filed Forms A-1 A-2 as prescribed by Notification No.40/2012-ST read with Notification No.12/2013-ST, which provides the procedure for exemption. 25. Having considered the rival contentions, we find that the afore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
