The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that construction of police quarters, tsunami rehabilitation houses, and certain hospital-related projects were not liable to service tax under the provisions invoked by the Department.
The bench of Ajayan T.V. (Judicial Member) and M. Ajit Kumar (Technical Member) has observed that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked in the absence of evidence of suppression or intent to evade tax.
The dispute arose from investigations conducted by the Service Tax Department into the activities of Pal Promoters Pvt. Ltd., which had undertaken various construction projects between April 2007 and March 2012. The projects included construction of residential units in tsunami-affected areas for the Tsunami District Implementation Unit (TDIU), housing projects for the Tamil Nadu Police Housing Corporation (TNPHC), works for non-governmental organizations, hospital buildings, and certain municipal infrastructure projects.
Based on these activities, the Department issued a show cause notice demanding service tax of approximately ₹1.41 crore along with interest and penalties, alleging that the company had provided taxable services under the categories of “Commercial or Industrial Construction Service” and “Construction of Complex Service.”
A separate demand of ₹5.42 lakh was also raised against the Managing Director, Shri P. Panneerselvam, relating to construction activities and alleged renting of immovable property services.
One of the key issues before the Tribunal concerned construction of residential quarters for the Tamil Nadu Police Housing Corporation.
The Tribunal noted that similar issues had already been decided in favour of taxpayers in earlier cases and that even the Commissioner (Appeals) had subsequently allowed relief to the appellant in relation to such projects. Following these precedents, the Bench held that construction services rendered for police housing projects were not liable to service tax.
Accordingly, the service tax demand relating to police quarters was set aside.
A significant aspect of the ruling relates to the construction of houses for tsunami-affected families.
The Tribunal observed that the projects involved construction of individual residential houses for displaced and homeless persons through organizations such as the Tsunami District Implementation Unit and Peoples Development Association. These houses were not intended for sale and were built as welfare measures for affected citizens.
Relying on earlier decisions of the Chennai Bench, including the ruling in K.B. & Co., the Tribunal held that individual houses do not qualify as a “residential complex” under Section 65(91a) of the Finance Act, 1994 because they do not constitute buildings having more than twelve residential units along with common facilities.
The Bench therefore concluded that such projects could not be taxed under the category of “Construction of Complex Service.” It further noted that after July 1, 2012, similar projects would also qualify for exemption available to construction of a single residential unit.
Consequently, the demands relating to construction of tsunami rehabilitation houses were held to be unsustainable.
The Tribunal also examined the demands raised on hospital construction projects and municipal works.
It found that the contracts involved supply of both goods and services, making them composite works contracts. Referring to the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in CCE v. Larsen & Toubro, the Bench observed that after introduction of the “Works Contract Service” category from June 1, 2007, composite contracts could not be taxed under the category of “Commercial or Industrial Construction Service.”
Since the Department had sought to tax these projects under the wrong taxable category, the demand itself was held to be legally unsustainable.
With respect to construction work undertaken for the Madurai Municipal Corporation, the Tribunal recorded that one of the projects had been abandoned at the basement stage due to a court stay order.
The Bench observed that the Department had failed to produce evidence demonstrating that the proposed building was intended primarily for commerce or profit-making activities. Citing earlier judicial precedents, it reiterated that the burden lies on the Revenue to establish that a building is being used or intended to be used for commercial purposes before classifying it as commercial construction.
In the absence of such evidence, the demand could not survive.
The Tribunal also delivered important findings on limitation.
It noted that the Department had failed to produce any evidence of wilful suppression, fraud, collusion or deliberate misstatement by the appellants. The construction activities were undertaken for government agencies, welfare organizations and hospitals, and the appellants had acted under a bona fide belief that the activities were not taxable.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s recent judgment in Stemcyte India Therapeutics Pvt. Ltd., the Bench reiterated that mere non-payment of tax is insufficient to invoke the extended limitation period. There must be a conscious and deliberate attempt to evade tax.
Accordingly, the invocation of the extended period was held to be unsustainable.
The Tribunal also set aside the demand raised against the Managing Director relating to renting of immovable property.
It accepted the contention that the property belonged to his wife and that the Department had not effectively disputed this fact. The Bench further observed that the levy itself had been subject to considerable litigation and retrospective amendments, making the demand vulnerable on limitation grounds as well.
Allowing both appeals, the Chennai Bench of CESTAT held that construction of police quarters for TNPHC was not liable to service tax. Construction of individual houses in tsunami rehabilitation projects could not be taxed as “Construction of Complex Service.” Composite construction contracts involving supply of goods and services could not be taxed under “Commercial or Industrial Construction Service.” The Department failed to establish commercial use in respect of certain municipal projects. Extended limitation was wrongly invoked in the absence of evidence of suppression or intent to evade tax. The demand relating to renting of immovable property against the Managing Director was also unsustainable.
The Tribunal consequently set aside the impugned orders and allowed the appeals with consequential relief to the appellants.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
