9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1024X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se notice issued to the appellant - the demand of approximately 7.48 lakhs which arises in respect of these two agreements entered post December 2012, are unsustainable as there is no demands which have been raised in the show-cause notice. To that extent the assessee/appellants appeal is allowed. Demand of 1.08 lakhs for the period in question up to December 2012 - interest - penalty - Held that: - the said demand is liable to be upheld as there is dispute that the tax liability needs to be discharged on the said amounts - Since the issue involved in these cases is regarding the interpretation of the provisions of Section 65(105). Hence no penalty is required to be discharged but the interest liability on the said amount of 1.08 lakhs need ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 18.02.2014 directed the assessee to submit certain details for the period January 2013 to December 2013 which were submitted and the said Superintendent by further letter dated 07.04.2014 directed the main appellant to pay further tax of approximately ₹ 2,00,000/- with interest and penalty on the ground that they had short-paid the tax liability for the period July 2010 to September 2010 and July 2012 to September 2012 which was replied to. After various correspondences entered of VCES declarations; show-cause notices date d22.12.2014 was issued to the appellant demanding approximately service tax of ₹ 23.55 lakhs under Section 111 of the Finance Act 1994 read with Proviso to Section 73(1) of the Act for the period 2010-11 to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 8.26 lakhs approximately on the ground that the said demand has been confirmed for the period post December 2012 for which no show-cause notices has been issued. His submission, that the specific allegation and demands raised in the show-cause notice is in paragraph No 20 which demands the tax liability for the period only upto December 2012 while the confirmation of the demands is for the period development agreement-cum general power of attorney entered into by the appellant/assessee on 24thJuly 2013 and 15th December 2013. He submits that since there is no show-cause notice this demand has to be set aside. As regards the differential demand of ₹ 1.08 lakhs for the period covered by the show-cause notice he submits that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rved that undivided share of the land is sold first and agreement of construction is entered into with individual buyers would mean that it is not a self-service and ultimate buyer is established and charge of the land received from the buyer is in respect of the right to the land; demands were dropped by interpreting that the number of units constructed for the agreements entered prior to 01.07.2012 were less than 12 and hence the CBEC circular dated 151/2/2012-ST dated 10.12.2012 is applicable is a wrong finding recorded by the adjudicating authority; the development agreement and general power of attorney were entered much prior to 01.07.2012 and no construction activity could have been started by the said date and the service became tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to 01.07.2010 are not taxable; he relies upon the following decisions also for the same proposition Josh P John [2014-TIOL-1753 CESTAT-Bang)]; Jain Housing [2014(36)STR 1010 (Mad); Shri Adity Homes [2014-TIOL-2165-CESTAT Bang and Vijay Builders [2017-TIOL-3845-CESTAT-Mad)] It is his further submission taht any amendment made in the Rule or Section would be applicable only prospectively and is not clarificatory in nature is the law settled and hence explanation added to the provisions of Section 65(105) would be applicable from 01.07.2010 only. 7. Considered the submission made at length by both sides and perused the records. 8. Taking up the assessee/appellant s appeal, we find strong force in the submission made by the learned Chartered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rmation of demand as is reproduce in paragraph No. 3 includes demand in respect of the development agreement-cum-general power of attorney entered on 24th July 2013 and 15th December 2013. In our considered view, the demand of approximately ₹ 7.48 lakhs which arises in respect of these two agreements entered post December 2012, are unsustainable as there is no demands which have been raised in the show-cause notice. To that extent the assessee/appellants appeal is allowed. 9. As regards the demand of ₹ 1.08 lakhs for the period in question up to December 2012 we find that the said demand is liable to be upheld as there is dispute that the tax liability needs to be discharged on the said amounts. Learned Chartered Accountant fai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
