Case Details: Commissioner of Service Tax vs. Simplex Infrastructure Ltd. (2025) 35 Centax 35 (S.C.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- J.B. Pardiwala & K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.
- S/Shri V.C. Bharathi, Navanjay Mahapatra, Gaurang Bhushan, Ms Archna Surve Shinde, Advocates & Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR, for the Petitioner.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner in the present matter was the Department of Revenue, who filed an appeal before the Supreme Court challenging the order of the CESTAT relating to service tax demand on construction services. The CESTAT, in its impugned order, had examined the construction of a sewerage system, including laying of pipes and allied works, rendered to the municipal corporation under the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM) project. Following the decisions in Shriram EPC Ltd. [Final Order Nos. 42412-42415/2018, dated 14-09-2018 by CESTAT Chennai] and Jyoti Buildtech (P) Ltd. [2017 (3) G.S.T.L. 116 (Tri. – All.)], the tribunal held that the demand of service tax on such services under the category of works contract service could not be sustained. The revenue contended that the levy was valid under sections 65(105)(zzzza) and 73 of the finance act, 1994, but failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay of 549 days in filing the appeal. The matter was accordingly placed before the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Held
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the appeal filed by the revenue was liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay. It observed that the delay of 549 days in filing the appeal was not satisfactorily explained. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed in favour of the assessee.
List of Cases Reviewed
- Simplex Infrastructures v. Commissioner — (2025) 35 Centax 34 (Tri.-Cal) — Affirmed [Para 2]
