9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 1053X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is designed or laid out by another person are excluded from the definition but also the ones intended for personaluse of such person i.e. the owner of the complex - In another case titled as NITHESH ESTATES LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, SERVICE TAX AND CUSTOMS BANGALORE-II [ 2015 (11) TMI 219 - CESTAT BANGALORE ] wherein it was held that the construction of residential complex for ITC (in that case) intended to provide accommodation built for own employees, activity was covered by definition of personaluse in Explanation to Section 65(91A) of Finance Act, 1994. Hence, the assessee‟s activity falls under exclusion of that Section and as such is excluded from levy of Service Tax. In the present case, the quarters/re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (AMC) and Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (AUDA) only. As per the department service tax on Construction of Complex Service was levied under Sub-Section (105)(zzzh) of Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994 with effect from 16.06.2005. Thus the services provided by Appellant under the JnNURM scheme fell under the category of Construction of Complex Service . Further, Government of India vide Notification No. 28/2010 dtd. 22.06.2010 exempted the taxable services of construction of complex referred to in sub-clause (zzzh) of clause (105) of section 65 of the Finance Act, when provided to Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission of (JnNURM) and Rajiv Awas Yojana, from the whole of the service tax leviable thereon under Section 66 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vice tax liability; in response to which AUDA has referred the matter to the Commissioner of Service tax on 06.12.2006. AUDA has specifically sought clarification as any service tax liability arises on AUDA or otherwise. The Commissioner had opined that the service tax is payable, but this reply was never shared with the present appellant. Hence the Appellant had approached the AUDA and AMC for clarification as well as payment towards service tax upon introduction of new levy, but neither they clarified nor they revised the terms of tender to allow charging of Service tax. Hence, the Appellant had not charged any service tax on service provided to AMC/AUDA for construction service. 5. He further submits that on the subject issues various ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der : Residential Complex has been defined under section 65(91a) of the Finance Act as follows :- (91a) residential complex means any complex comprising of (i) a building or buildings, having more than twelve residential units; (ii) a common area; and (iii) any one or more of facilities or services such as park, lift, parking spaces community hall, common water supply or effluent treatment system, located within a premises and the layout of such premises is approved by an authority under any law for the time being in force, but does not include a complex which is constructed by a person directly engaging any other person for designing or planning of the layout, and the construction of such complex is int ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s excluded from levy of Service Tax. 10. In the present case, the quarters/residential complexes were got constructed by the AMC and AUDA for urban poor people for their residential use, the same amounts to personaluse‟. The confirmation of demand qua these services by the Commissioner is therefore not sustainable. 11. We also find that on the identical facts and issue in the matter of Santosh Katiyar Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhopal 2017(3)GSTL 203 the Delhi Tribunal held that :- 4 . From the record, it appears that during the period under consideration, the appellant neither took credit nor paid any Service Tax on the impugned services. The department is of the view that the said services are subject to serv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10. 5. In the light of above discussion and by considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the M.P Government has constructed the accommodation for the gandi basti people under the Central sponsored scheme which is attempted to clean India as per Prime Minister s mission. 6 . When it is so, then we find no merits in the impugned order as no service tax is leviable in the instant case. Hence, the impugned order is set aside. The appellant will get the relief accordingly. From the above judgment it can be seen that the identical fact is involved in the above judgment and in the case in hand in as much as in both the cases the construction service was provided to Jawaharlal Nehru Nationa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
