Case Details: A.S. Construction Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax, Udaipur (2025) 36 Centax 325 (Tri.-Del)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Justice Dilip Gupta, President & Shri P.V. Subba Rao, Member (T)
- Shri Prashant Srivastava, Adv., for the Appellant.
- Shri Manoj Kumar, Authorised Representative, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The appellant provided construction services to Rajasthan Housing Board. It was contended that the board qualified as a ‘governmental authority’ and was therefore eligible for exemption. The appellant failed to demonstrate 90 percent or more government participation through equity or control. It also did not provide evidence that the board carried out functions entrusted to a municipality. The matter was placed before the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).
CESTAT Held
The CESTAT held that Rajasthan Housing Board was not a ‘governmental authority’, as it was not established by an Act of the State Legislature. The Tribunal noted that the board did not demonstrate that it performed municipal functions under Article 243W of the Constitution of India. It was further observed the amended notification, did not bring it within the definition of ‘governmental authority’. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and the exemption claim was rejected under Section 93 read with Section 66E of the Finance Act, 1994.
List of Cases Cited
- Commissioner v. Shapoorji Pallonji & Company Pvt. Ltd. — 2023 (79) G.S.T.L. 145 (S.C.) = (2023) 11 Centax 180 (S.C.) — Relied on [Paras 6, 13]
List of Notifications Cited
- Notification No. 25/2012-S.T., dated 20-6-2012 [Paras 2, 9, 10, 12, 18]
- Notification No. 2/2014-S.T., dated 30-1-2014 [Para 11]
