9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (6) TMI 260X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10 in respect of construction of residential complex - HELD THAT:- The CBEC by way of clarification vide Circular No. 108/02/2009-ST dated 29.01.2009 r/w Circular No. 151/2/2012-ST dated 10.02.2012, have clarified that for the period prior to 01.06.2010, construction(residential) provided by builder / developer will not be taxable - Admittedly, the tax under this category, of ₹ 42,01,090/- relates to the period prior to 01.06.2010. Accordingly, this ground is allowed in favour of the appellant and the demand is set aside. Maintenance and repair service - HELD THAT:- Learned Counsel urges that the appellant does not dispute the tax liability, and they have already paid the amount of ₹ 90 lakhs (approximately) prior to the show cause notice, and shall pay the balance if any, upon reconciliation. Demand under the head renting of immovable properties for the period 2007-08 to 2009-10 - HELD THAT:- Learned Counsel states that they have already paid the tax prior to the issue of show cause notice, and within the window provided for payment of tax under this head, when this taxable head was re-introduced by Finance Act, 2010 after the same was quashed by Hon ble Delhi Hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proposing as follows: (i) the services rendered by M/s Manjeera Constructions to various customers as detailed in Annexure-I to this notice should, not be classified under Commercial or Industrial Construction Services and an amount of ₹ 34,91,178/- for the period 2005-06 to 2007-08, should not be demanded from them on account of providing taxable services, under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, read with the proviso thereto; (ii) the services rendered by them to various customers as detailed in Annexure-II to this Show Cause Notice during the period from 2005-06 to 2009-10 should not be classified under Construction of Complex Services and short paid amount of ₹ 42,01,090/- for the period 2005-06 to 2009-10 should not be demanded from them on account of providing taxable services, under Section 73(1) of the Fianance Act, 1994 read with the proviso thereto; (iii) the services rendered by M/s Manjeera Constructions to various customers under Works Contracts as detailed in Annexure-III to this Notice, should not be classified under Works Contract Services and short paid amount of ₹ 1,32,29,790/- (as per composition scheme) for the period 2007-08 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... service in the contracts executed by them. We find that the issue is no longer res-integra and it has been held by Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE Vs Larsen Toubro [2015 (39) STR 913 (S.C.)] that prior to 01.06.2007 only service contracts simplisitter (not involving supply of material) are taxable under the existing classification of CICS, ICS, CCS, etc. Accordingly, we set aside the demand of ₹ 34,91,178/-. We also take notice that there is no proposal in show cause notice to alternatively classify and demand tax under the head works contract services, w.e.f. 01.06.2007. 5. The next issue is service tax liability on promoters / builder / developer prior to 01.06.2010 in respect of construction of residential complex. 6. We find that the CBEC by way of clarification vide Circular No. 108/02/2009-ST dated 29.01.2009 r/w Circular No. 151/2/2012-ST dated 10.02.2012, have clarified that for the period prior to 01.06.2010, construction(residential) provided by builder / developer will not be taxable. Admittedly, the tax under this category, of ₹ 42,01,090/- relates to the period prior to 01.06.2010. Accordingly, this ground is allowed in favour of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efail Solutions Pvt Ltd Vs Union of India . 11. So far the service tax of ₹ 20,685/- under the head engineering consultancy services is concerned for the period 2009-10, Learned Counsel states that they did not dispute this amount, thus same is confirmed. 12. Learned Counsel further states that admittedly appellant was registered with the department, they have filed regular ST-3 returns and deposited the admitted taxes. Further, whole issue is interpretational in nature and some issue like taxability of composite contracts (prior to 01.06.2007) was sub-judice and finally settled by Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Larsen Toubro only in August, 2015. Further, service tax on renting of immovable properties was re-introduced vide Finance Act, 2010, and the appellant deposited the tax under this head within the window provided under the Finance Act, 2010. There can be no liability of interest and penalty. Reliance is placed on the ruling of Supreme Court of India in Star India Pvt Ltd., [2006 (1) STR 73 (S.C.)], D.S. Narayana Company Pvt Ltd., Vs CCE, Visakhapatnam-II [2017 (4) GSTL 20 (Tri-Hyd)]. Further, service tax under management, maintenance and repair serv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
