SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, DIPANKAR DATTA, JJ.
Commissioner, Customs Central Excise and Service Tax, Patna – Appellant
Versus
M/s Shapoorji Pallonji and Company Pvt. Ltd. and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3991 of 2023
WITH
Union of India and Others – Appellants
Versus
M/s Shapoorji Pallonji and Company Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 3992 of 2023
Decided On : 13-10-2023
(A) Interpretation of Statute – Principle of statutory Interpretation – Any authority, entrusted with function of legislating, legislates for a purpose and it will not indulge in unnecessary or pointless legislation – What is plain and ambiguous from a bare reading of a provision under consideration must be interpreted in same way as it has been stipulated and not in a way that it presumes deficiency and radically changes meaning and context of provision – Punctuation, though a minor element, may be resorted to for the purpose of construction – A construction leading to an anomalous result has to be avoided. (Paras 20, 21, 25, 26 and 28)
(B) Finance Act, 1994 – Section 66B – Exemption from service tax – Mega Service Tax Exemption Notification No. 25/2012, G.S.R 467(E) dated 20th June, 2012 – Ambit of – Interpretation of relevant provision resulting in expanded scope of its operation cannot in itself be sufficient to attribute ambiguity to the provision – To make a statute workable by employing interpretative tools and to venture into a kind of judicial legislation are two different things – Merely because statute does not yield intended or desired results, that cannot be reason for Court to overstep and cross Lakshman Rekha by employing tools of interpretation to interpret a provision keeping in mind its outcome – Interpretative tools should be employed to make a statute workable and not to reach to a particular outcome – Impugned judgments and orders upheld. (Paras 32, 33 and 34)
Facts of the case:
These two civil appeals that centre around a common question: whether the educational institutions in question, viz. (i) the Indian Institute of Technology, Patna (“IIT Patna”, hereafter) and (ii) the National Institute of Technology, Rourkela, are covered the definition of “governmental authority” in Mega Service Tax Exemption Notification inter alia exempting various services from tax network rendered to government, governmental, or local authorities.
Findings of Court:
Authority having the competence to issue a notification completed its job by re-defining “governmental authority” and now it is a task entrusted to the courts to interpret the law.
Result : Appeals dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
DIPANKAR DATTA, J.
PREFACE
1. We are tasked to decide two civil appeals that centre around a common question: whether the educational institutions in question, viz. (i) the Indian Institute of Technology, Patna (“IIT Patna” hereafter) and (ii) the National Institute of Technology, Rourkela (“NIT Rourkela” hereafter), are covered by the definition of “governmental authority” in Mega Service Tax Exemption Notification1 [No. 25/2012, G.S.R. 467(E) dated 20th June, 2012] (“Exemption Notification” hereafter) inter-alia exempting various services from the tax network rendered to government, governmental, or local authorities. If “governmental authority” as defined in the Exemption Notification takes within its embrace IIT Patna and NIT Rourkela, they would be eligible for an exemption from the service tax that otherwise applies to construction services provided by service providers or subcontractors within their premises.
THE APPEALS
2. In Civil Appeal No. 3991 of 2023 (“CA-I” hereafter), the appellant assails the judgment and order dated 03rd March, 2016 of the High Court of Judicature at Patna (“Patna High Court” hereafter) whereby a writ petition2 [CWJC No. 16965 of 2015] preferred by the first respondent, i.e. M/s Shapoorji Pallonji and Company Pvt. Ltd. (“SPCL” hereafter) was allowed and the service tax collected by the appellant was directed to be refunded.
3. Civil Appeal No. 3992 of 2023 (“CA-II” hereafter) challenges the judgment and order dated 05th February, 2018 of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack (“Orissa High Court” hereafter). The Orissa High Court while relying on the aforesaid decision of the Patna High Court in favour of SPCL, on a similar question of law, allowed a writ petition3 [W.P. (C) No. 17188 of 2015] preferred by SPCL for refund of service tax.
THE RELEVANT NOTIFICATIONS
4. The Exemption Notification, under consideration, was issued by the Department of Revenue under section 93 of the Finance Act, 1994 (“the 1994 Act” hereafter) inter-alia exempting various taxable services from the levy of whole of the service tax under section 66B thereof. Clause 12(c) of the Exemption Notification, which is relevant for the purpose of the present adjudication, reads as follows:
(a) ***
(b) ***
(c) a structure meant predominantly for use as (i) an educational, (ii) a clinical, or (iii) an art or cultural establishment;
(d) ***
(e) ***
(f) ***”
5. Since we are concerned with the interpretation of “governmental authority” clause 2(s) of the Exemption Notification defining “governmental authority” is reproduced hereunder:
6. It may also be noticed that section 66D of the 1994 Act, inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 1st July, 2012, specifies the negative list of services, i.e. the services on which service tax is not leviable.
7. Clause 2(s) of the Exemption Notification underwent an amendment vide a Notification dated 30th January, 2014 (“Clarification Notification” hereafter). This amendment, re-defining “governmental authority” sought to broaden the scope of the exemption. The amended definition is set out herein-below:
(i) set up by an Act of Parliament or a State Legislature.
(ii) established by Government, with 90% or more participation by way of equity or control, to carry out any function e
Barun Kumar & Ors. vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.
Bihar State Electricity Board vs. Pulak Enterprises & Ors.
ONGC Ltd vs. Afcons Gunanusa JV
Jindal Stainless Ltd. v. State of Haryana
Akshaibar Lal (Dr.) v. Vice-Chancellor, Banaras Hindu University
Commissioner of Customs (Import)
ITC Limited vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata
Superintendent & Legal Remembrancer
Union of India & Ors. vs. Ind-Swift Laboratories Ltd.
Utkal Contractors & Joinery (P) Ltd. vs State of Orissa (1987) 3 SCC 279 – Relied [Para 22]
Sri Jeyaram Educational Trust vs. A.G. Syed Mohideen (2010) 2 SCC 513 – Relied [Para 23]
Kantaru Rajeevaru vs. Indian Young Lawyers Association & Ors. (2020) 9 SCC 121
Girdhari Lal & Sons v. Balbir Nath Mathur (1986) 2 SCC 237 – Relied [Para 31]
Interpretation of Statute – Punctuation, though a minor element, may be resorted to for the purpose of construction – A construction leading to an anomalous result has to be avoided.
The Notified Area Authority, Vapi is not classified as a 'local authority' or 'governmental authority' under the GST Act, thus ineligible for GST exemption.
The High Court ruled that the petitioner qualifies as a 'Government Entity,' thereby eligible for tax exemption under the Karnataka GST Act due to 100% government control and funding.
Composite educational services involving infrastructure installation are 'naturally bundled'. Where the predominant character is imparting education prescribed by a curriculum, such services are exem....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.