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

TMI Blog

Home

2014 (1) TMI 402

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... /2013(PB) - Dated:- 25-7-2013 - G. Raghuram, J. and Shri Sahab Singh, Member (T) Shri Govind Dixit, DR, for the Appellant. Shri Atul Gupta, C.A., for the Respondent. This Revenue s appeal is preferred against the order dated 22-8-2008 of the Commissioner (Appeals), Chandigarh reversing the adjudication order dated 21-3-2007 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Central Excise, Chandigarh. 2. Revenue visited the respondent/assesse s office premises and during audit realised that the assessee was collecting money from prospective buyers of constructions made on its own property; that the assessee had collected Rs. 15,02,18, 189/- during the period 16-6-2005 to 31-3-2006 from buyers; and that on this amount was required to remi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tor shall be liable to pay Service Tax on the gross amount charged for the construction services provided, to the builder/promoter/developer under construction of complex service; and where the builder/promoter/developer undertakes construction work on his own without engaging the services of any other person, in such cases, in the absence of a service provider and service recipient relationship, the question of providing taxable service to any person by any other person would not arise and no tax would be leviable. Another appellate decision of the Commissioner dated 7-4-2008 in the case of M/s. Skynet Builders (P) Ltd. and a decision of the High Court of Gauhati in Magus Construction Pvt. Ltd. - 2008-TIOL-321-SC-GUW-ST = 2008 (11) S.T.R .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... shtra Chamber of Housing Industry v. Union of India - 2012 (25) S.T.R. 305 (Bom.), the validity of the Explanation added to Sections 65(105)(zzq) and (zzzh) was challenged on several grounds. The Bombay High Court, also considered the issue whether the explanation was prospective or retrospective in operation and ruled that the explanation inserted by the Finance Act, 2010 brings within the fold of taxable service a construction service provided by the builder to a buyer where there is an intended sale between the parties whether before, during or after construction; that the Explanation was specifically legislated upon to expand the concept of taxable service; that prior to the explanation, the view taken was that since a mere agreemen .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates