2011 (4) TMI 700 - AT - Service Tax

Tax Liability of residential complex - Section 65 (105) (zzzh), 65(30a) and section 65 (91a) - Appellant has no layout plan to examine his contentions to consider his prayer that the activity carried out by him does not come under the purview of residential complex - Prima facie, satisfied that Revenue s interest shall be prejudiced, if no pre-deposit is called for at this interim stage - Therefore, direct the appellant to deposit an amount of Rs.10.00 Lakhs within four weeks - Decided against the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Tax liability and penalty dispute on work with M/s. Alfa Toyo Ltd., Faridabad
2. Tax liability dispute on work with M/s. Unitech Machines Ltd., Gurgaon
3. Tax demand arising from commercial and industrial construction services with M/s. Eros City Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi
4. Taxability of work with M/s. R.C. Sood & Co. Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi as construction of a residential complex

Analysis:
1. The appellant contested the penalty aspect as there was no tax demand arising from the work with M/s. Alfa Toyo Ltd., Faridabad. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal on the limited count of tax levy for this work, confirming the demand but leaving the penalty aspect for further hearing.

2. Regarding the work with M/s. Unitech Machines Ltd., Gurgaon, the appellant acted as a sub-contractor, and the tax liability was discharged by the principal contractor. The Tribunal noted that this aspect remained undisputed by the Revenue, with no liability arising, subject to further scrutiny during the regular hearing.

3. The dispute arose from the commercial and industrial construction services provided to M/s. Eros City Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, leading to a tax demand of nearly Rs.80,000. Further details and arguments were presented by both parties, which would be examined during the proceedings.

4. The main issue concerned the taxability of the work with M/s. R.C. Sood & Co. Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, as construction of a residential complex. The appellant argued that the work did not fall under this category as no residential complex was constructed, and no facilities were provided on the premises. However, the Tribunal found that the statutory provisions indicated a nexus between the activity and the construction of a complex. Due to the lack of a layout plan to support the appellant's contentions, the Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit Rs.10.00 Lakhs within four weeks to stay the realization of the balance demand during the appeal's pendency.