Case Details: Trishaa Rose Garden Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise (2026) 42 Centax 145 (S.C.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Dipankar Datta & Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ
- S/Shri V. Lakshmikumaran, Ms Nitum Jain, Swastik Mishra, Ms Neha Choudhary, L. Badri Narayanan, Ms Medha Sinha, Atreya G.C., Advocates & Ms Charanya Lakshmikumaran, AOR, for the Appellant.
Facts of the Case
The appellant was entrusted with the upkeep, preservation and periodic maintenance of existing gardens and parks. The services rendered were related to the maintenance of existing gardens and parks and did not involve one-time development or creation of new horticultural assets. The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that the services satisfied the definition of ‘management, maintenance or repair service’ under Section 65(64) read with Section 65(105)(zzg) of the Finance Act, 1994, as amended with effect from 01-05-2006, and were taxable thereunder. The order passed by CESTAT was challenged before the Supreme Court. The matter was accordingly placed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Held
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that there was no error in the order passed by CESTAT holding that upkeep, preservation and periodic maintenance of existing gardens and parks fall within the scope of ‘management, maintenance or repair service’ under Section 65(64) read with Section 65(105)(zzg) of the Finance Act, 1994. It was observed that the services rendered were related to the maintenance of already existing gardens and parks and not to the development or creation of new horticultural assets. The Court upheld the finding that such activities are taxable as ‘management, maintenance or repair service’ after the amendment effective from 01-05-2006. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.
List of Cases Reviewed
- Trishaa Rose Garden Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Coimbatore — (2026) 42 Centax 144 (Tri.-Mad), — Affirmed [Para1]
