Karnataka High Court
Commissioner Of Service Tax vs M/S Turbotech Precision Engineering ... on 15 April, 2010
Bench: K.L.Manjunath, B.V.Nagarathna
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARHATAKA AT 3 DATED nus um 151:1: DAY OFAPRIL, 2013; Prwsnzrr % TI-IE Horrnm MR..J'{3S'I'ICE T 'T '1'!-IE HOWBLE ms. msncés J BETWEEN: ' V. Commissioner of SeIxri.¢(:~..j;ax 'A _4 . _ Service Tax Commissi0i1a1a.t€~2,L j, % _ No.16, S.P.C0mp1ex, Lalba-gh Road __ Bangalore-560 0_2'7_ H " ' V (By A§i:(,i)' C ' Engineering}-'Vt. Ltd ' "
Survcéy N08, acira Viliage, 'V * ' ..... V' Neiama1f1ga}a'Ta1uk, ;8;a?;;galQfiV_'R1ir;a1_1.}3ist. . . . RESPONBENT (By K..S;:§:a;:ishankar, counsel for mspendent) 'ri:1;qi cm is raw under 530356 of the Central Act, 1944 praying to set aside the Final Omar
-- j 'I~§G..1Q'€;8/2006 dt.15.6.i20(}6 passed by CESTAT, in the
- mfifirest afjustice and equity.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS ' DAY, MANJUNATH J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING'. 5 assessee. If the case of the assessee does not fall under section 65(13) of the Act and if the Works eoniafiact executed by the assesses du.ri.ng reievant V. Period, cannot be taxed under the Finance K substantial questions of iaw against the revenue and in favour bf the "
7. During relevant --».,:1:1e "def1I1:1it.ion of eensuleng Engineer defied a;i'i<f.e1;:' ems) reads as hereunder;
"eo;1su§Eti1*3'g_ Ven _ professionally engineering firm who, renders any advice, cor1s1JE1i;s§%i1c:yV' assistance in any ,.egis1mer ts' &1..¢li€I1t in one or more disciplines of . "engirj:eer*i;(:g.
definitien of Cecnsultzing Engineer has bees under the Fmance Act 2006 which has "meme iilie effecfi: from 13* May 2006, the defmitien of s 'szi'1ir:h reads as hezeunderz 65(31) "eonsultirzg engineer" means any prefessionaiiy qualified engneer of any bedy corporate or any other firm Who, either directiy er indirectly, renders any 8 conduit, primarily for the purpo%s dof commerce or industry; or ((2) construction of a new residential comp1ex___or a part thereof; or _ ((1) Completion and finishing services;--- f alemtion, renovation or restoration _of,." " ' similar services, in relation to (1)) .(¢};.:0r_
(e) turnkey projects procurement and co1"1stm'otio1i1 , " ._ commissioning (EPC).__.projer_:i:S.
10. This sectionf has eoiie,__h1:o efiect from 1.6.2007. After ."Iiifi'<3?'»iV.Ci£);IV11I:K'aCt entered into between the case of the "fimiciiereiiiisection 65(1o5)(zma) Explanetioo (£1): though the assessxee's case falls iindefi of Works conuaot, but the " no to call upon the assesses to pay ..ifiterest and penalty therein, since the pfo°,§isio:3,$ has oome into force with efiect from " _ V 1. In the present case, contract is for the period '' 1997 to 2001. Therefore, the said question is also required to be answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.
12. In View of our findings on these have to answer the substanfni qvaestims of against the revenue and in favour of. #1::
13. Accordingly, the "