Applicability service tax to NHAI
This query is : Resolved
07 December 2009
Dear Sir,
We(X) are awarded Highway(Roads)from NHAI regarding shifting & removl of Electricl poles. inturn we are giving a contract to Mr'X' for above work.
Q: 'Y' party has to put a bil include of service tax(specially mentioned) on behlf of SPV(X) to NHAI. can "Y" get service tax from NHAI?
1) As per provision of service tax, Execution of works contract is exempted service( roads, Airports, Dams, Bridges.ships).
2) erection, Installation and commessioning of Electricl works is taxable serive but it is exempted for Roads.
3. Can Y claim service tax from NHAI.
4. The party has argued that, it will leivable on my turnover.what is laibilty on NHAI?
We(X) are awarded Highway(Roads)from NHAI regarding shifting & removl of Electricl poles. inturn we are giving a contract to Mr'X' for above work.
Q: 'Y' party has to put a bil include of service tax(specially mentioned) on behlf of SPV(X) to NHAI. can "Y" get service tax from NHAI?
1) As per provision of service tax, Execution of works contract is exempted service( roads, Airports, Dams, Bridges.ships).
2) erection, Installation and commessioning of Electricl works is taxable serive but it is exempted for Roads.
3. Can Y claim service tax from NHAI.
4. The party has argued that, it will leivable on my turnover.what is laibilty on NHAI?
18 February 2012
READ THIS
The government has issued a circular which is reproduced below. Jaiprakash Associates – a well known infrastructure contractor had made a representation wherein they appealed the government to give relief to sub - service providers (mind-well I am not using the term SUB CONTRACTOR) to infrastructure companies like the architects - so far so good - noble intentions are never rewarded - and thats the story - now read the circular - the question asked was X and the answer given is X+Y. I dont know why a contractor is exempt for constructing a road whereas an architect or an engineer is not - but holistically and strictly in accordance with today’s written law I tend to agree with the circular but the circular goes ahead and concludes that - sub-contractors are not exempt from providing these infrastructure services like roads.
The circular is saying that the classification of the service provided by the sub-service providers must be classified in categories other than WCS - that is absolutely correct as per law – how can an architect or an engineer be classified under WCS – but when the circular uses the word “sub-contractor” – the officers in the field with limited knowledge and unlimited views will take it to its illogical conclusion and this in turn will create big round of litigations. I will try to analyse this circular through a live example.
Example:
A XYZ company gets a contract to built a 100 kms highway from NHAI – he in turn sub-contracts 25 kms of it to another contractor on back to back basis and starts construction of the rest of the 75 kms by himself for which he appoints following outside agencies
Engineering Firm
Excavation company
A company which will install the traffic signals and so on
The implication of the circular will be as under:
1. The sub-contractor who is going to construct the 25 kms of road will be fully exempt even though he is a sub-contractor as his service will still fall within the WCS head where roads are exempt
2. Engineering firm will be taxable as its services fall under consulting engineering services head (this was the legal position earlier also)
3. Excavation company will fall under the site preparation services – where there is a exemption notification for roads – hence it will not be taxable
4. The company which will install the traffic signals will be taxable as its services will fall within the erection services definition – here there will be problems as similar definition is there in WCS also – so now litigation will start on this.
The government has issued a circular which is reproduced below. Jaiprakash Associates – a well known infrastructure contractor had made a representation wherein they appealed the government to give relief to sub - service providers (mind-well I am not using the term SUB CONTRACTOR) to infrastructure companies like the architects - so far so good - noble intentions are never rewarded - and thats the story - now read the circular - the question asked was X and the answer given is X+Y. I dont know why a contractor is exempt for constructing a road whereas an architect or an engineer is not - but holistically and strictly in accordance with today’s written law I tend to agree with the circular but the circular goes ahead and concludes that - sub-contractors are not exempt from providing these infrastructure services like roads.
The circular is saying that the classification of the service provided by the sub-service providers must be classified in categories other than WCS - that is absolutely correct as per law – how can an architect or an engineer be classified under WCS – but when the circular uses the word “sub-contractor” – the officers in the field with limited knowledge and unlimited views will take it to its illogical conclusion and this in turn will create big round of litigations. I will try to analyse this circular through a live example.
Example:
A XYZ company gets a contract to built a 100 kms highway from NHAI – he in turn sub-contracts 25 kms of it to another contractor on back to back basis and starts construction of the rest of the 75 kms by himself for which he appoints following outside agencies
Engineering Firm
Excavation company
A company which will install the traffic signals and so on
The implication of the circular will be as under:
1. The sub-contractor who is going to construct the 25 kms of road will be fully exempt even though he is a sub-contractor as his service will still fall within the WCS head where roads are exempt
2. Engineering firm will be taxable as its services fall under consulting engineering services head (this was the legal position earlier also)
3. Excavation company will fall under the site preparation services – where there is a exemption notification for roads – hence it will not be taxable
4. The company which will install the traffic signals will be taxable as its services will fall within the erection services definition – here there will be problems as similar definition is there in WCS also – so now litigation will start on this.
18 February 2012
Toll collection on behalf of NHAI would come under the category of Business Auxiliary Service ; NHAI only a statutory authority and not a constitutional authority.
You need to be the querist or approved CAclub expert to take part in this query .
Click here to login now
Click here to login now
Unanswered Queries
- ITR 2 Short Term gain & Long term gain
- Reporting Income under Section 44ADA
- Off Market debit and credit transaction
- Itr 1 processing
- Share accounting-->fifo - capital gain - period as per fifo?
- ITR returnFY25-26
- Form 10E u/s 89(1). Need clarification because experts opinions differ !!!!
- ITR validation error - Balance sheet is not filled
- ITR 1: Details for showing Exempt Income
- INCOME TAX ON REDEVELOPEMENT OF FLAT
- Opting out" of regime provided under subsection (1A) of Section 115BAC but Form 10IEA is not filed.
- Difference in tax comparison report
- Gst invoice numbering and delivery challan numbering
- Sales amount in Gstr1
- E Commerce GSTR1 & 3B how to file
- GST Cancellation without jurisdiction
- Legal Opinion on Registrar's Refusal to Investigate a Society for Non-Renewal and Non-Compliance
- GST Refund_RFD-01
- Form10BD was uploaded successfully without any Error but after 24 hours, Form10BE are not available
- Annexure B utility for GST Refund
Trending Online Classes
-
DT & Audit (Exam Oriented Fastrack Batch) - For May 26 Exams and onwards Full English
CA Bhanwar Borana & CA Shubham Keswani
Subscribe to Pro
Join an elite circle of professionals
CAclubindia
