2019 (1) TMI 67 - AT - Service Tax

Liability of Service tax - Construction of Complex Service - sale of undivided share of land (UDS) - case of appellant is that the appellant being a promoter is not rendering any of the services and that therefore there is no service tax liability - period from June 2005 to March 2009 and April 2009 to June 2010 - Held that - The issue is more or less identical to the Order of this Bench in the case of M/s. Golden Ventures 2018 (7) TMI 434 - CESTAT CHENNAI wherein this Bench after analyzing various Orders/decisions and Circulars, has held that the appellant who is a builder/promoter is not liable for service tax upon his selling UDS. There is no service tax liability on the appellant - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Service tax liability on construction of complex service for the period from June 2005 to June 2010.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Service Tax Liability
The appellant, registered under Construction of Complex Service, procured land and entered into agreements with buyers for sale of undivided share of land (UDS) and construction of flats. The Revenue issued Show Cause Notices proposing service tax demands for the periods June 2005 to March 2009 and April 2009 to June 2010. The appellant contended that as a promoter, they were not rendering any services, citing relevant tribunal orders. The Revenue argued lack of clarity on whether it was a composite contract, referencing a Delhi Tribunal decision. The Tribunal analyzed various orders and circulars and held that the appellant, as a builder/promoter, was not liable for service tax on selling UDS, aligning with previous tribunal decisions. The Tribunal noted the absence of service provider and service-recipient relationship in the absence of engaging a contractor for construction work. The Tribunal also referred to a judgment excluding construction for personal use from service tax liability. The Tribunal concluded there was no service tax liability on the appellant, allowing the appeal with consequential reliefs.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding no service tax liability on the construction of complex service for the specified periods based on the lack of service provider-recipient relationship and aligning with previous tribunal decisions and judgments.