CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI.

PRINCIPAL BENCH - COURT NO.III E-Hearing Service Tax Appeal No. 50773 of 2021 with Service Tax Cross No.50516 of 2021 [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.28-29(SM)/ST/JPR/2021 dated 15.01.2021 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise & CGST, Jaipur.]

Commissioner of Central Appellant Excise & CGST, Block A, Surya Nagar, Alwar, Rajasthan-301 001.

VERSUS M/s.Rajendra Mittal Construction Co. Respondent Pvt. Ltd., 210-211, Optus Corporate Suites, Vasundhara Nagar, Bhiwadi, District-Alwar (Rajasthan)-301 019.

APPEARANCE Shri S.K. Meena, Authorised Representative for the Department.

Shri Ajay Kumar Mishra, Advocate for the respondent.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MS. BINU TAMTA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

HON’BLE MS. HEMAMBIKA R. PRIYA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

FINAL ORDER NO.50296/2026 DATE OF HEARING/DECISION: 19.02.2026.

BINU TAMTA:

1. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent is engaged in providing works contract service of civil construction for various Government departments/Universities/IITS/NITS. On scrutiny of records of the appellant by the Service Tax Department, it was observed that the appellant in the capacity of "sub-contractor" had provided "Works Contract Service" in respect of construction of G+4 Building for extension of Electrical Department at National Institute of Technology (NIT), Patna and for construction of various types of buildings (Campus School, Community Centre and Houses etc.) at the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Mandi as per work awarded by the principal contractor, namely, M/s NBCC. NIT, Patna and IIT, Mandi had originally awarded work to NBCC vide MOU dated 23.07.2013 and 21.03.2014. The Appellant had not paid any service tax thereon on the belief that said services were exempted vide Entry at S.No.29(h) read with entry at S.No.12A of notification no.25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012, since the recipients were Government Department/Governmental Authority. The Department, however, observed that NIT, Patna and IIT, Mandi were neither Government/local authority nor "governmental authority", hence, no exemption was available in respect of works contract service provided by the appellant to them. Show cause notices were issued to the appellants demanding service tax under Section 73(1) along with interest under Section 75 of Finance Act, 1994 and imposition of penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. On adjudication the demand of service tax was confirmed along with interest and penalty. The show Cause Notice dated 19.02.2019 and 28.03.2019 were adjudicated by the Additional Commissioner, CGST, Alwar vide common OIO dated 21.08.2019 confirming the demand of service tax along with interest and penalty.

2. The appeals filed by the assessee was allowed by the Commissioner(Appeals) relying on the definition of „government authority‟ as defined under clause 2(s)of Notification No.25/2012– ST dated June 20, 2012, as amended vide notification No.2/2014– dated January 30, 2014 and also on the decision of the Patna High Court in the case of Shapoorji Pallonji and Company Private Ltd versus CC, C. EX.S.T., Patna¹

3. Heard both the sides and perused the records.

4. The learned Counsel for the respondent has also referred to the decision of the Apex Court confirming the decision of the Patna High Court. The learned Authorised Representative for the Department has very fairly conceded that the issue stands settled now by the Apex Court in favour of the appellant in Commissioner, Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Patna Vs. M/s. Shapoorji Pallonji and Company Pvt. Ltd., 2023(79) GSTL 145 (SC), dismissing the Revenue‟s appeal. While interpreting the definition of „government authority‟ as contained in Clause 2(s), the Court observed:-

“27. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the long line of clause 2(s) governs only sub-clause (ii) and not sub-clause (i) because of the simple reason that the introduction of semicolon after sub- clause (i), followed by the word “o