Allowed

Ahluwalia Construction Group v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi-I

Delhi HC20 Jan 2016SERTA/2/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal against an order requiring a pre-deposit. The Court set aside the impugned order by CESTAT for failing to consider key contentions regarding the wrong classification of service tax demand and relied on a previous order in a related matter to revive the stay.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 9th November 2015 set aside; stay application revived for fresh decision.

Ahluwalia Construction Group Vs Commissioner of Service… — Company and Corporate | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

41.

¶4

- SERTA 2/2016 & CM No.2032/2016

¶5

AHLUWALIA CONSTRUCTION GROUP ..... Appellant Through: Mr. C. Hari Shankar, Senior Advocate with Mr. S. Sunil and Mr. S. K. Sarwal, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, DELHI-I, ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Satish Kumar, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr. Agrim Bhasin, Advocate.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

% 20.01.2016

¶12

This is an appeal filed by the Appellant against an order dated 9^th November, 2015 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘CESTAT’) requiring the Appellant to deposit Rs.1.75 crores as pre-deposit and report compliance by 20^th January, 2016.

¶13

At the outset, it is pointed out by Mr C. Hari Shankar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant that in the impugned order the CESTAT has set out only two contentions of the Appellant. The CESTAT

¶14

SERTA 2/2016 Page 1 of 3

¶15

has, however, not noted that inasmuch as the service tax demand is for a period subsequent to 2007 the demand under the head ‘construction service’ was in contravention of the circular dated 24^th August, 2010 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs clarifying that the activity had to be treated as a works contract. It is pointed out that the above jurisdictional issue of the exigibility of the works contract executed by the Petitioner to service tax by wrongly classifying it as ‘construction service’, despite having been specifically urged by the Appellant before it, has not been taken note of by the CESTAT. It is pointed out that a further contention raised, but not considered by the CESTAT, is that in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Kerala

¶16

v. Larsen & Turbo Ltd. 2015 (2) SCC 461 a distinction had to be drawn between the value of goods supplied as part of the works contract and the value of the services rendered for the purposes of service tax.

¶17

The Court notices that in a similar appeal before this Court by a sister concern of the Appellant, this Court by an order dated 12^th October, 2015 in Service Tax Appeal No.1/2015 noted a similar contention of the Appellant

¶18

and remanded the matter to the CESTAT for consideration of the Appellant’s application for waiver of the pre-deposit afresh in accordance

¶19

SERTA 2/2016 Page 2 of 3

¶20

with law.

¶21

In view of the fact that the above contentions have not been considered by the CESTAT when it passed the impugned order, the Court sets aside the impugned order dated 9th November 2015 and revives the stay application filed by the Appellant before the CESTAT for a fresh decision in accordance with law.

¶22

The appeal as well as the pending application are disposed of in the above terms.

¶23

S.MURALIDHAR, J

¶24

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

¶25

JANUARY 20, 2016 MK

Ahluwalia Construction Group v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi-I

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ahluwalia Construction Group v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi-I

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Classic Constructions Vs Commissioner of Service Tax, New Delhi

Ahluwalia Construction Group Vs Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi-I

National Building Construction Corporation Limited Vs Commissioner, Service Tax Commissionerate, New Delhi

Unipro Marketing Pvt.Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Service Tax,Delhi

Ahluwalia Construction Group Vs Commissioner 0F Service Tax, Delhi-I

Pr. Commissioner of Income TAX-(CENTRAL-2) Vs Green Age Consultants Pvt. Ltd.

The Principal Commissioner of Income TAX-6 Vs M. Tech India P. Ltd.

Birbal Academy & Publications Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Joint Commissioner, Central, Excise and Service Tax, Delhi & Anr.

Pr. Commissioner of Income TAX-6 Vs Manupatra Information Solution

Commissioner of Income Tax-Iii Vs Delhi Transport Corporation Ltd.

Commissioner of Income Tax-Iv Vs Digital Radio (Del) Boardcasting Ltd.