Himachal Pradesh Housing & Urban Development Authority Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Chandigarh)
CESTAT Chandigarh partly allowed three appeals filed by Himachal Pradesh Housing & Urban Development Authority (HIMUDA) against orders dated 29.01.2015 and 28.03.2017 concerning service-tax demands for 2007-08 to 2014-15. The Tribunal held that the SCN dated 22.04.2013 was unsustainable because it merely listed renting of immovable property, business auxiliary and consulting engineering services without specifying the taxable category applicable to each receipt. It also set aside the FY 2012-13 demand raised through a statement under Section 73(1A) of the Finance Act, 1994, since the grounds were not the same as those in the earlier SCN and construction services were newly introduced. For 2012-13 to 2014-15, the Tribunal held HIMUDA to be a Governmental Authority and found the relevant receipts connected with municipal functions covered by Entry No. 39 of Mega Exemption Notification No. 25/2012-ST. It also held that service tax could not be recovered on composite construction contracts in the absence of valuation machinery and that HIMUDA was not liable under reverse charge for legal services as it was not a “business entity”. The extended-period demand was held barred by limitation. However, since HIMUDA agreed to pay service tax on commercial construction for FY 2013-14 and 2014-15, the matter was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for quantification. The penalty under Section 70 read with Rule 7C was upheld.
CESTAT Chandigarh Examines Multiple Service Tax Issues in HIMUDA Appeals
Three appeals were filed by HIMUDA against two impugned orders passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax. Appeal No. ST/52410/2015 challenged the order dated 29.01.2015, while Appeal Nos. ST/60528/2017 and ST/60556/2017 challenged the order dated 28.03.2017. Since the issues were identical, the Tribunal heard the appeals together, taking ST/52410/2015 as the lead case.
