Page 95 - GSTL_18th June 2020_Vol 37_Part 3

2020 ] G.N. CONSTRUCTION v. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. & S.T., JALANDHAR 309
3.1 The term “business entity” has been defined under Section 65B (17) of
Finance Act, 1994 and it reads as under :-
Section 65B(17)
“business entity” means any person ordinarily carrying out any ac-
tivity relating to industry, commerce or any other business or pro-
fession” ;
3.2 The word “Body Corporate” was defined under erstwhile Section 65
(14) of Finance Act, 2014 and it reads as under :-
Section 65(14)
“body corporate” has the meaning assigned to it in clause (7) of sec-
tion 2 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956)”;
The Finance Act, 1994 was restructured and section 65 was omitted vide
Ntfn. No. 20/2012 S.T., dated 5-6-2012 w.e.f. 1-7-2012. There is no definition
in body corporate given in the Finance Act, 1994 w.e.f. 1-7-2012. The Com-
panies Act, 1956 was replaced by Companies Act, 2013.
The 2(11) of Companies Act, 2013 define the word “body corporate” as
under :-
Section 2(11)
“body corporate” or “corporation” includes a company incorpo-
rated outside India, but does not include -
(i) a co-operative society registered under any law relating
to cooperative societies; and
(ii) any other body corporate (not being a company as de-
fined in this Act), which the Central Government may,
by notification, specify in this behalf;
This definition is wider definition and only limit is the two exclu-
sions mentioned therein. None of the entity is to whom services
were provided fall under these two exceptions/exclusions.”
4. He further submits that the PWD, CPWD, PSIEC, Trust are ordinari-
ly carrying out activities relating to business/profession and accordingly they
are business entity and body corporate, therefore, they are entitled for the benefit
of Notification No. 30/2012-S.T., dated 20-6-2012 at Sr. No. 9. He further submit-
ted that the said authority constructing flats for use below of poverty line are also
exempt from Service Tax as held by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court
in the case of Bharat Bhushan Gupta & Company v. State of Haryana - 2016 (44)
S.T.R. 195 (P&H). He further submitted that the said services provided by the
contractors fall within exemption Clause 12 of Notification No. 25/2012-S.T.,
dated 20-6-2012 effective from 1-7-2012 and from that date board could not de-
duct Service Tax from bills of contractor. It has been further held that board is
not entitled to pass on the burden of Service Tax payable on its part. Therefore,
he prayed that the flats constructed for the people below poverty line, no Service
Tax is payable. The bridges constructed by the appellant are exempt from pay-
ment of Service Tax. Further, in terms of Notification No. 30/2012-S.T., dated 20-
6-2012 Sr. No. 9, they are liable to pay 50% of Service Tax. In the said benefit is to
be given to the appellant, the appellant liability will be reduced substantially.
5. On the other hand, the arguments advanced by the Ld. Advocate
were opposed by the Ld. AR who submits that for low cost houses having carpet
area of 60 Sqm, the housing project should be approved by the competitive au-

GST LAW TIMES  18th June 2020  95