Case Law Details
Jyoti Sarup Mittal Vs Commissioner of Central Tax (CESTAT Delhi)
Introduction: The case of Jyoti Sarup Mittal vs Commissioner of Central Tax (CESTAT Delhi) delves into the nuanced realm of works contracts, tax statutes, and exemptions. This article analyzes key aspects such as auditorium construction, works contract services, exemptions for governmental authorities, arbitration awards, and the role of Form 26AS entries.
1. Interpretation of Tax Statute: Auditorium Construction Exempted Pre-2012; Strict Construction Advocated:
For the period from 1.6.2007 up to 2012, works contracts could be taxed only if they fell under clause 65 (105)(zzzza) and only under this clause. The scope of this clause was limited and it did not include all composite works contracts involving supply or deemed supply of goods and rendering services but only some such services. Insofar as the construction of a building or structure is concerned, this clause applies to findings for commercial purposes. We do not agree with the contention of the Revenue that the auditorium constructed in the university should be considered as a commercial structure. Even if the reasoning of the Commissioner, that it can also be used for commercial purposes is accepted, the essential nature of the building is not commercial. Therefore, it does not fall under section 65(105)(zzzza). The charging section of a tax statute must be strictly constructed and in case of any doubt, the benefit of doubt must go in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
As far as the demand for the period after 2012 (post negative list period) is concerned, as submitted by the learned consultant, inter alia, the following services were exempted by notification no. 25/2012:
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
