Service Tax
TRT-2025-
Cestat Ahmedabad
Date:-06-02-24
In:-
Issue Favourable to Tax Payer ?:-
Order Date – 06 February 2024
Parties: Gujarat Energy Transmission Corporation Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & ST, Anand
Facts –
- The Appellant, Gujarat Energy Transmission Corporation Limited, undertook transmission of electricity in the State of Gujarat. The appellant recovers from the consumers various charges such as erection charges, contingency charges, supervision charges, development charges etc. for such erection of Bays, Sub-station and Transmission Lines which are required for transmission of electricity.
- Two show cause notices dated 20.10.2014 and 10.04.2015 were issued for the period 2009-10 to 2012-13 and 2013-14 respectively demanding service tax on various charges recovered by the appellant from the consumers further service tax to the extent of 50% under reverse charge on work contract service and also demand interest on Cenvat credit which was never utilised by the appellant.
Issue –
- Whether the demand of service tax on charges recovered from the consumers is valid?
Order –
- The Tribunal observed that the issue has been considered in various judgments that any service which is provided in relation to transmission of electricity is exempted under Notification Nos. 45/2010-ST dated 20.07.2010, 11/2020-ST dated 27.02.2010 and as per negative list under Section 66D of the Finance Act, 1994.
- From the judgments in the case of it can be seen that the entire period in the present appeal i.e. related to Notification No. 45/2010-ST, 11/2010-ST and also for the period when negative list under Section 66D was in force, it was held that service for transmission of electricity is not leviable to service tax. Therefore, the issue is no longer res-integra. Accordingly, in the present case also the service tax liability in respect of Erection, Commissioning and Installation Service is not sustainable.
- As per facts and circumstances, there is no suppression of facts on the part of the appellant therefore, even for the demand of interest, the longer period cannot be invoked as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner vs. TVS Whirlpool Limited.
- Hence the demand is not sustainable. As a result, the impugned order is set-aside and the appeals are allowed.
Download Case Law
