9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 561X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed:- 2-9-2011 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Shri Rakesh Kumar, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri Mayank Garg, Advocate, for the Appellant. Smt. Sonal Bajaj, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Rakesh Kumar, Member (T)]. The appellants are engaged in the construction of residential complexes. They entered into Developer Agreement with land owners to construct a building for the purposes of sale and as per the agreement, while the land owners get 50% share of the property constructed against their contribution of land, the Appellant get the remaining 50% share of the property against their contribution of working capital. The flats of the complexes, which were in the appellant s share, were sold by them. The department s contention is t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion to the land owners, that no service has been provided to the persons to whom the flats, out of the appellant s share in the complexes constructed, were sold and only under mis-conception, the appellant paid the Service tax on the consideration received on sale of flats, that even if the flats were constructed against agreement for sale with the prospective buyers and on completion of the construction, the ownership was transferred to the buyers on receipt of the consideration for the same, this cannot be said to be taxable services under Section 65(105)(zzzh) as this has become taxable services only by the Finance Act, 2010 when an Explanation was added to Section 65(105)(zzzh) providing that for the purpose of this sub-clause, construc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R opposed the appellant s plea for waiver from the requirement of pre-deposit by defending the impugned order and pleaded that Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of G.S. Promoters v. Union of India reported in 2011 (21) S.T.R. 100 (P H) has while upholding the validity of Explanation added to Section 65(105)(zzzh) of the Finance Act, 1994, held that construction of residential complexes by a builder/developer against flats purchase agreement is a service. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. In this case, Service tax is demanded on the amount received on sale of the flats which were in the appellant s share in terms of their agreement with the land owners. According to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
