SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Telangana) 1650

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
P.Sam Koshy, Narsing Rao Nandikonda, JJ.
The Commissioner Of Customs Central Excise And Service Tax - Appellant 
Versus
M/s Nagarjuna Consltruciton Co. Ltd., Hyd – Respondent 
Central Excise Appeal No.04 of 2011
Decided On : 12-11-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : A RAMA KRISHNA REDDY SC FOR CBEC
For the Respondent: VEDULA SRINIVAS

Water supply board functions are recognized as sovereign activities, exempting associated construction services from service tax under the Central Excise Act.

Headnote:(A) Central Excise Act, 1944 - Section 35G - Service Tax applicability - Appeal against CESTAT ruling on whether construction services provided by contractor to state water supply board fall under Commercial or Industrial Construction Service - Activities classified as sovereign functions and thus not taxable - Definition of Industry under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 considered. (Paras 1, 12, 23, 24)

(B) Service Tax Liability - Determination hinges on commercial nature of services rendered and whether services were provided to an entity recognized as an industry under applicable laws. (Paras 11, 23)

Facts of the case:
Appeal filed by revenue challenging CESTAT's decision that contractor’s services in constructing pipelines for a Government Water Supply Board were exempt from Service Tax. The Tribunal held that the nature of services does not constitute commercial activity.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal’s conclusion was based on a thorough understanding of the regulatory and operational roles of a water supply board, confirming that such functions fall under sovereign activities.

Issues: Core issues were whether services provided were taxable under Commercial or Industrial Construction Service and if the water supply board operates as an industry under defined legal considerations.

Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld that the water supply functions, while structured as an industry, performed sovereign duties, thereby exempting them from service tax liabilities assigned to commercial activities.

Result: Appeal dismissed, confirming CESTAT’s ruling.

Table of Content
1. overview of appeal and preliminary facts (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 10)
2. arguments regarding classification of services offered by nccl (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
3. analysis of statutory definitions and application of service tax (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
4. inspections of gwssb's classification as an industry (Para 21 , 22 , 23)
5. final order confirming dismissal of central excise appeal (Para 25)

JUDGMENT:

Narsing Rao Nandikonda, J.

This appeal is filed by the appellant-respondent under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short, ‘the Act, 1944’) against the Final Order No.819 of 2010, dated 17.05.2010 passed in Appeal No.AT/73/2008 by the learned Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, FKCCI-WTC Building, K.G. Road, Bangalore (for short, ‘CESTAT’).

2. Heard Sri A.Rama Krishna Reddy, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Central Excise, appearing for the appellant and Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel representing Smt.Chitralekha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

3. The brief facts of the case are that M/s. Nagarjuna Construction Company Limited is having its Registered Office at Nagarjuna Hills, Hyderabad, (for short, ‘NCCL’) and obtained Centralized Registration with Hyderabad-II Commissionerate, Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, for the purpose of discharging its service tax liability for certain taxable services under the Finance Act, 1994 (for short, the Act, 1994’) provided at various places all over India under Service Tax Registration No.AAACP4709NST001.

4. It is stated that NCCL is registered with the department as provider of taxable service falling under the category ‘Commercial or Industrial Construction Services’, ‘Consulting Engineers Services’, ‘Erection, Commissioning or Installation Services’ etc. The NCCL was awarded contract for laying of long distance pipelines in the State of Gujarat under a contract awarded to them by M/s. Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board (GWSSB). Basing on the Intelligence gathered by the Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence (DGCEI), Ahmedabad Zonal Unit, Ahmedabad, it was found that the respondent was not paying appropriate Service Tax on the said Taxable Services and an inquiry was initiated and investigation was conducted by the DGCEI, Ahmedabad Zonal Unit.

5. It is further stated that basing on the said findings of the inquiry, a Demand-cum-show cause notice in F.No. DGCEI /AZU /12(4)27/ 2005- Nagarjuna, dated 30.07.2007 was issued by the Additional Director General, DGCEI, Ahmedabad Zonal Unit to the assessee, proposing total demand of Rs.7,15,36,082/- towards the Service Tax payable by the assessee. But, the same was not paid by the assessee on the said Taxable Service of CICS during the period 16.06.2005 to 31.03.2007 under Section 73 of the Act, 1994 by invoking the extended period of five years as per proviso to sub section (1) of Section 73 of the Act, 1994. A show cause notice was issued proposing charging of interest on the said tax amount in terms of Section 75 of the Act, 1994 and also penalty under Sections 76 and 78 of the Act, 1994.

6. It is stated that the said show cause notice was answerable to the Commissioner, Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Hyderabad-II Commissionerate, being the Jurisdictional Adjudicating authority. It is further averred that the Commissioner, Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Hyderabad-II Commissionerate, Hyderabad vide Order- in-Original No.19/2008-ST, dated 31.10.2008 confirmed the demand of Service Tax of Rs.7,15,36,082/- under Section 73 (2) of the Act, 1994 along with interest under Section 75 of the Act, 1994 and imposed penalties (i) at the rate of two percent per month on the service tax amount, starting with the first day after due date till the date of actual payment, however not exceeding the service tax payable, in terms of Section 76 of the Act, 1994 and (ii) Rs.8 crores penalty under Section 78 of the Act, 1994, however, the same

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top