9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 35X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce Ruling (hereinafter referred to as the WBAAR) in the matter of M/s. Bengal Peerless Housing Development Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as "BPHDCL"). 2. BPHDCL, located at 6/1 A, Moira Street, Mangaldeep Building, Ground Floor, Kolkata 700017 holding CJSTIN 19AABCB3038PlZE is a joint venture of The West Bengal Housing Board and The Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Limited for developing real estate projects in West Bengal. It is developing a residential housing project named 'Avidipta II' and supplying construction service to the recipients for possession of dwelling units in the year 2023. In addition to the construction service, BPHDCL provides services like preferential location service (PLS), which includes services of floor rise and directional advantage. 3. The Respondent sought an advance ruling under section 97 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/ the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, (hereinafter collectively referred to as "the GST Act") on whether the supply of these services of PLS including floor rise, directional advantage constitutes a composite supply with construction service as the principal supply, and if so, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is defined as predominant element of a composite supply under Section 2(90). The WBAAR finally held that in the present case, the PLS has to be bought as a package, where the construction service remains the predominant element, while accepting the fact that the buyer has the option not to pay for such service. The WBAAR concluded that BPHDCL is providing a composite supply of the bundle of services, where construction service is the principal supply and hence entire value of the composite supply is to be treated for the purpose of taxation as supply of construction service. 5. The Appellant has filed the instant Appeal against the above Advance Ruling with the prayer to set aside/modify the impugned Advance Ruling passed by the WBAAR on the following grounds: (a) The Respondent (BPHDCL) applied for ruling for the limited purpose to know whether the supply of PLS constitutes a composite supply with construction service as the principal supply or not. But, the ruling has been passed not only for this purpose but also for "right to use of car parking space". However, PLS does not include any facility related to car parking space. (b) The WBAAR erred in treatment of PLS as a com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction. The respondent also submitted that the supplies of floor rise and directional advantage are integral to the principal supply of construction service and in the absence of any one, the principal supply of construction cannot be effected. These services, that is to say, construction service and services attributable to choice of the purchaser in respect of floor rise and directional advantage are therefore naturally bundled and supplied with each other in the ordinary course of business of which construction service is the principal supply. 10. The respondents placed reliance on the decision of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the CESTAT), in the case of Logix Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. & S.T., Noida, 2019 (25) GSTL 59 (Tri. All) = 2018 (11) TMI 462 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD, wherein on the same issue involved, though under the erstwhile Finance Act, 1994, as amended with effect from July 1, 2012, Section 66F was inserted. The Learned Tribunal, upon due consideration of the provisions of Section 66F sub-section (3) of the Finance Act, 1994 observed and held that after the introduction of Section 66F on the stat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t 1994, which is similar to that contained in Section 8 sub-section (a) of GST Act. The Learned Advocate claimed that as held by the Learned CESTAT in the case of Logix Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. & S.T., Noida, 2019 (25) GSTL 59 (Tri. All) = 2018 (11) TMI 462 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD, after introduction of Section 66F sub-section (3), the entire consideration received is eligible for abatement in this case. 15. However, we find that the said legal interpretation was applicable for pre-GST era. Moreover, in the Service Tax regime, a special category of service namely Builder's Special Services having a separate tax collection head 00440616 was also in existence to take care of such services provided by the builders, which specifically included services for providing preferential location [Section 65(105)(zzzzu) of the Finance Act, 1994] on which no abatement was available. In the said Section, the "taxable service" was defined as any service provided or to be provided to a buyer, by a builder of a residential complex, or a commercial complex, or any other person authorized by such builder, for providing preferential location or development of such complex but doe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ertificate, where required, by the competent authority or after its first occupation, whichever is earlier. (Provisions of paragraph 2 of this notification shall apply for valuation of this service). (ii) Composite supply of works contract as defined in clause 119 of section 2 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. (iii) Construction services other than (i) and (ii) above. It is clear from the said categorization that PLS should come under category no. 3(iii) as the other two categories are clearly defined. Abatement to the extent of 1/3rd of the total amount charged for supply of the service mentioned under Sl. No. 3(i) of the Rate Notification has been allowed under para 2 of the said Notification. No abatement has been provided for service mentioned under Sl. No. 3(iii) of the said Table. 18. In his verbal submission, the Senior Advocate for the respondent has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India vs. UTV News Ltd., = 2018 (5) TMI 1367 - SUPREME COURT wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench has deferred disposal of the case until disposal of the main issues pending before the nine judges Bench in Mineral Area Development ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
