Sub-Contractor Is Liable to Pay Service Tax Even if Main Contractor is Exempt | CESTAT

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

Service tax exemption for sub-contractors
Case Details: Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi East v. Navnirman Construction Company (2025) 26 CENTAX 415 (Tri.-Del.)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

  • Dr Rachna Gupta, Member (J) & Ms Hemambika R. Priya, Member (T)
  • Shri Anand Narayan, Authorized Representative, for the Appellant.
  • Shri Kamal Gupta, Chartered Accountant, for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The assessee was engaged in providing construction services to private companies. During the audit of the main contractor, it was revealed that the assessee received various services through contractors/sub-contractors service providers. Later, the main contractor did not charge service tax on the bills against those services provided. The assessee charged the main contractor without charging any service tax. The department contended that the assessee was not liable to pay service tax on the construction services provided to the main contractor as the main contractor was exempt from paying service tax on the same services. The matter reached the CESTAT.

CESTAT Held

The Tribunal held that the services provided by the assessee were not provided to the Government but to a private company. The construction was meant for profit/revenue generation and not predominantly for non-commercial use. The exemption available to the Government services would not be available to the sub-contractor providing services to a private contractor, even if the main contractor is exempt and the final service recipient is the Government.

List of Cases Cited

List of Departmental Clarification Cited

List of Notifications Cited

Leave Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Stories
Refund Can’t Be Denied After Final CESTAT Order | HC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

February 1, 2026

FA 2010 Service Tax Levy on Construction Upheld | HC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

January 31, 2026

Tobacco Products Assessable Under Section 4, Not 4A | CESTAT

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

January 28, 2026

Clandestine Removal Demand Set Aside For Lack Of Proof | CESTAT

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

January 27, 2026

No Review on Interest/Penalty If Duty Set Aside | HC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

January 24, 2026

Duty Demand Set Aside; Review Of Interest Penalty Invalid | HC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

January 23, 2026

Booking Speakers Via Agents Not Event Management | SC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

January 22, 2026

RCM Service Tax Refund Allowed Despite Registration Status | CESTAT

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

January 21, 2026

One-Day Delayed Payment Due To Tech Glitch Accepted | HC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

January 20, 2026

Chocolate-Coated Wafers Eligible For Concessional Duty | SC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

January 19, 2026