Jayhind Projects Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Service Tax (Supreme Court of India)
Summary: The Supreme Court allowed two civil appeals filed by M/s. Jayhind Projects Ltd. against the Commissioner of Service Tax, Ahmedabad, setting aside the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Ahmedabad order dated 5 January 2010. Counsel for both sides jointly submitted that the issues raised in the appeals were covered by the Supreme Court’s earlier decision in Commissioner of Service Tax v. Bhayana Builders Private Limited, (2018) 3 SCC 782. Counsel for the appellant sought reversal of the CESTAT order on that basis, and senior counsel for the Revenue agreed. Following the binding decision in Bhayana Builders, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals and directed that the pre-deposit made before CESTAT may be refunded in accordance with law. Pending applications were disposed of. The short order does not separately describe the underlying valuation facts or undertake fresh statutory analysis. The cited Bhayana Builders judgment concerned exclusion of the value of materials supplied free of cost by the service recipient when computing the gross amount charged for taxable construction services.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Bhayana Builders Private Limited concerned the valuation of taxable construction services where materials were supplied free of cost by the service recipient. In that judgment, the Court had held that the value of such materials could not be included in the gross amount charged by the service provider for determining service tax liability under the statutory provisions considered. Since both parties acknowledged that the issues in Jayhind Projects Ltd. were governed by this precedent, the Supreme Court accepted their submissions and applied the earlier ruling. However, the short order did not independently discuss the appellant’s contractual arrangements, disputed valuation, amount of service tax demanded or the detailed reasoning adopted by CESTAT. The decision was confined to applying the legal position already settled in Bhayana Builders.
Cases Discussed
- Commissioner of Service Tax and Ors. v. Bhayana Builders Private Limited and Others, (2018) 3 SCC 782 (Supreme Court) — Followed; the parties agreed that this judgment governed the appeals.
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
Ms. Apeksha Mehta, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Arijit Prasad, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent/Department jointly submitted that the issues, which arise in these appeals are covered by a judgment of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Service Tax and Ors. Vs. Bhayana Builders Private Limited and others reported in (2018) 3 SCC 782 and therefore, in view of the said dictum, appropriate orders may be made in these appeals.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in view of the aforesaid judgment of this Court, the impugned order dated 05.01.2010 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad may be set aside and the appeals may be allowed.
Learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent very fairly agreed to the said submission of appellant’s counsel.
In the circumstances, following the dictum of this Court in the afore-mentioned case of Bhayana Builders Private Limited, these appeals are allowed by setting aside the impugned order passed by CESTAT.
The pre-deposit amount, deposited by the appellant herein before the CESTAT may be refunded to the appellant, in accordance with law.
Pending application(s) shall stand disposed of.
