Chandigarh Transport Corporation Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Chandigarh)
The dispute before the CESTAT Chandigarh concerned the service-tax liability of Chandigarh Transport Corporation in respect of various activities undertaken at its bus stands and buses. On the basis of intelligence and investigation, the Department formed the view that the appellants were providing taxable services relating to renting of immovable property, selling of space and time for advertisement, and support services of business and commerce. A show cause notice dated 21.01.2010 was issued and the demand was confirmed by the impugned order-in-original dated 21.10.2010.
The principal dispute in the appeal concerned Adda Fees/bus stand fees collected by the undertaking from bus operators. On behalf of the appellants, it was submitted that bus stands were constructed and maintained as public utility facilities and not for supporting the business of bus operators. The Adda Fee was stated to be a statutory levy collected under Section 67(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, with the amounts being used for maintenance of bus stands. Reliance was placed, among others, on the decision in Cochin International Airport Ltd. and on decisions concerning statutory functions performed by public authorities.
The appellants also contended that service tax could not be levied on management and maintenance of non-commercial Government business in view of Section 98 of the Finance Act, 1994. They relied upon CBEC Circular No. 80/10/2004 dated 17.09.2004 concerning Government buildings and civil constructions and Circular No. 89/7/2006-ST dated 18.12.2006 concerning activities performed by sovereign/public authorities under statutory obligations. The appellants further submitted that collection of statutory fees did not convert a public utility bus stand into a commercial building and that the Union Territory Government could not be treated as a person for purposes of the relevant Business Support Service classification. Reliance was also placed on Deputy Commissioner of Police, Jodhpur, as affirmed by the Supreme Court, and on Shivprasad.
