9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 810X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y granted partly. - ST/415/2012 - Misc. Order No.42431/2013 - Dated:- 7-10-2013 - Shri P.K. Das and Shri Mathew John, JJ. For the Appellant: Shri V. Prasanna Krishnan, Consultant For the Respondent: Shri M. Rammohan Rao, DC (AR) ORDER Per P.K. Das; The applicant is engaged in the construction of residential complex. By show-cause notice dated 24.3.2010, there is a demand of tax of Rs.93,75,351/- for the period 16.6.2005 to 31.3.2009. The original authority confirmed the entire demand of tax along with interest and penalty. 2. The learned counsel on behalf of the applicant submits that the demand is under two categories:- (a) Construction of residential complex -Rs.88,47,580/- (b) Management, maintenance and repa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e gross amount charged for the construction services provided, to the builder / promoter / developer under section 65(105)(zzzh) of the Finance Act, 1994. If no other person is engaged for construction work and the builder / promoter/ developer undertakes construction work on his own without engaging the services of any other person, then in such cases in the absence of service provider and service recipient relationship, the question of providing taxable service to any person by any other person does not arise. Service tax exemption for small service providers upto an aggregate value of taxable services of Rs. 4 lakh provided in any financial year vide notification No.6/2005-Service Tax dated 1.3.2005 is applicable for c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d these amounts to be not part of taxable value and therefore the demand is barred by limitation cannot be ignored. The payments involved, we find, are reimbursement of expenditure and not consideration received by the appellants for any service. Therefore, this demand is also apparently not sustainable. 5. The learned AR on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). He particularly drew the attention of the Bench paragraphs 10 and 11 of the impugned order. He submits that in this case the applicant is the defacto contractor. It is submitted that the applicant first entered with an agreement with the individual customers for construction of flats and sale of UDS of land and thereafter they entered into an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
