9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1115X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of investigation, it came to knowledge of revenue that service provider had constructed three residential complexes, one was Sai Sharnam Project at Sirdi in the state of Maharashtra, the second was Laboni Project in Ghaziabad and the third was Technocity Project at Noida. On the basis of said investigation, a show cause notice dated 25.06.2015 was issued. It was stated in the said show cause notice that service provider was required to register with the Service Tax Department on 01.07.2010 and the service provider registered with the department in the month of June, 2012. It was stated that service provider had collected around Rs. 19.8 crores up to June, 2010 in respect of Laboni Project, about Rs. 28.9 crores in respect of Techno city Project upto June, 2010 and from 01.07.2010 service provider received gross amount up to 31.03.2014 in respect of said three projects including the amounts received before June, 2010 to the tune of Rs. 140.15 crores. It was stated in the said show cause notice that gross amount reflected in ST-3 returns filed by the service provider for the period from 01.07.2012 to 31.03.2013 was around Rs. 36 crores. The service provider were leveled with the ch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t credit on service tax paid on the input services to the tune of around Rs. 75 lakhs the same was allowed by the Original Authority. c. In respect of proposal on imposition of penalty on Shri Rajeev Arora under Section 78 A of Finance Act, 1994 the Original Authority has held that the said provision was inserted with effect from 01.05.2013 and show cause notice has not discussed about the specific role played by Shri Rajeev Arora and therefore, he has held that the said proposal was not sustainable. d. In respect of Techno City Project the Original Authority has allowed 75% abatement and confirmed the demand of service tax of around Rs. 1.68 crores. The total demand confirmed by the Original Authority is around Rs. 1.68 crores for Techno City Project around Rs. 34 lakhs for Sai Sharnam Project, around Rs. 1.88 crores for Laboni Project, around Rs. 11 lakhs on miscellaneous income and under reverse charge around Rs. 32,000/-. The Original Authority further found that the service provider has filed ST-3 returns for the period from April, 2010 to March, 2014 and has recorded the date of filing of said returns and due to delay in filing of all the said returns he imposed penalty of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Customs through the Circular No.334/3/2010-TRU dated 01.07.2010 clarified that completion certificate issued by an architect as well as by a Chartered Engineer or License Supervisor can be taken as a valid certificate for determining the service tax liability. He submitted that Shri Sai Sharnam Project was started in 2007 and was completed on 15.07.2009 and it was certified by architect on 31.03.2010 that the project was completed and that said submission of the service provider was not accepted by the Original Authority and therefore, he confirmed the demand of around Rs. 34.79 lakhs. He further submitted that architect through certificate dated 05.05.2010 certified that Laboni Project was completed and also marked a copy of said certificate to Ghaziabad Development Authority and on the basis of said certificate Ghaziabad Development Authority issued completion certificate on 13.07.2011. He has submitted that the said certificate was also not accepted by the Original Authority for confirmation of demand of around Rs. 1.88 crores in respect of Laboni Project. He has further submitted even if Original Authority has not accepted the said two certificate, during investigation revenu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... should have been included. He has further submitted that penalty under Section 78A on Shri Rajeev Arora should have been imposed. 6. Having considered the submissions from both the sides and on perusal of record we note that the issue to be decided in the present appeal is whether service tax was leviable in respect of Sai Sharnam Project and Laboni Project. Further, we note that in respect of Sai Sharnam Project the original authority has refused to accept date of completion as 31.03.2010 in the absence of mention of name of the said project in the certificate issued by architect. However, we note that during the proceedings it was not establish through positive evidences by revenue that any activity of construction in respect of Sai Sharnam Project was continued after 01.07.2010. We, therefore, hold that the levy of service tax introduced w.e.f. 01.07.2010 is not applicable to Sai Sharnam Project. In respect of Laboni Project the Original Authority has stated that though service provider has referred to certificate issued by architect on 05.05.2010 he will go by the certificate issued by Ghaziabad Development Authority on 13.07.2011. The learned Counsel for service provider has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
