2022 (2) TMI 958 - AT - Service Tax

Levy of Service Tax - Construction of Commercial Complex Services - period both prior to 01.07.2010 and thereafter - HELD THAT - The issue is squarely covered by the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE CUSTOMS VERSUS M/S LARSEN TOUBRO LTD. AND OTHERS 2015 (8) TMI 749 - SUPREME COURT , wherein it has been held that demand would not legally sustain in case the same is not raised in the category of Works Contract Service. Since the issue is no longer res integra and stands decided by the Hon ble Supreme Court, it is not considered necessary to deal with the other grounds raised in the appeal - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Demand of Service Tax on 'Construction of Commercial Complex Services' provided by the Appellant.
2. Applicability of Service Tax under the category of 'Commercial or Industrial Construction Service'.
3. Challenge to the demand on grounds of completion of construction before 01.07.2010 and legal precedent regarding Works Contract Service.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the Order-in-Original confirming the demand of Service Tax on the amount received by the Appellant for providing 'Construction of Commercial Complex Services'. The Appellant had provided 'Construction Services' to specific customers during the disputed period. The demand was based on the allegation that the Appellant was engaged as developers and liable to pay Service Tax under the category of 'Commercial or Industrial Construction Service'.

2. The Appellant contested the demand on various grounds, including completion of construction before 01.07.2010, as per the inserted Explanation in the Finance Act, 2010. The Appellant argued that even if the constructed property is sold, it is not liable to tax under the specified category. Additionally, reference was made to a legal precedent where it was held that a demand would not sustain if not raised under the category of 'Works Contract Service'.

3. The Authorized Representative for the Respondent supported the findings of the Ld. Commissioner and requested the appeal to be rejected. After hearing both parties and examining the records, the Tribunal referred to a decision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and subsequent Tribunal decisions, emphasizing that a demand must be raised under the category of Works Contract Service. As the issue was settled by legal precedent, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with consequential relief as per law.

This comprehensive analysis highlights the key arguments, legal precedents, and the final decision of the Tribunal in favor of the Appellant based on the specific legal interpretations and precedents cited during the proceedings.