Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2019 (2) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2019 (2) TMI 476 - AT - Service Tax


Issues:
1. Applicability of service tax on the sale of residential bungalows under construction.
2. Interpretation of the term "residential complex" for service tax purposes.
3. Availability of personal use benefit for buildings intended for personal use.
4. Tax levy on the sale of under-construction units pending before the Supreme Court.
5. Contention on limitation for the tax demand.

Analysis:

1. The appellant, registered under works contract service, sold residential bungalows under construction and discontinued service tax payment based on CBEC clarifications. A show cause notice demanded service tax for the period April 2006 to December 2010. The Commissioner confirmed the demand and penalties, leading to the appeal.

2. The appellant argued that their construction did not fall under the definition of a residential complex per Sec.65(91a) of the Finance Act, 1994, as none of their buildings had more than 12 units. Citing relevant case laws and a previous decision by the Bench, they contended that they should not be charged service tax.

3. Additionally, the appellant claimed that since the complex was intended for personal use, the benefit of personal use exclusion should apply, further supporting their position against the service tax levy.

4. The appellant also raised the issue of the pending Supreme Court decision on the tax levy for under-construction units, questioning the finality of the tax imposition. They contested the demand on grounds of limitation as well.

5. In a similar case, the Bench had previously ruled that construction of residential complexes before July 2010 was not taxable based on CBEC circulars. Following this precedent, the Bench found in favor of the appellant, setting aside the demand, interest, and penalties, thus allowing the appeal with consequential relief.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates