9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 779X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... "Works contract", for the purposes of section 65(105)(zzzza), means a contract wherein:- (i) transfer of property in goods involved in the execution of such contract is leviable to tax as sale of goods, and (ii) such contract is for the purposes of carrying out,- (a) erection, commissioning or installation of plant, machinery, equipment or structures, whether pre-fabricated or otherwise, installation of electrical and electronic devices, plumbing, drain laying or other installations for transport of fluids, heating, ventilation or air-conditioning including related pipe work, duct work and sheet metal work, thermal insulation, sound insulation, fire proofing or water proofing, lift and escalator, fire escape staircases or elevators; or (b) construction of a new building or a civil structure or a part thereof, or of a pipeline or conduit, primarily for the purposes of commerce or industry; or (c) construction of a new residential complex or a part thereof; or (d) completion and finishing services, repair, alteration, renovation or restoration of, or similar services, in relation to (b) and (c); or (e) turnkey projects including engineering, procurement and con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e main contractor. Appellant had appointed sub-contractors all of whom have paid the tax as required under the law. The question that arises is whether the appellant is liable to pay service tax in respect of the complex built for ITC. From the definition it is quite clear that if the complex is constructed by a person directly engaging any other person for design or planning or lay out and such complex is intended for personal use as per the definition, service tax is not attracted. Personal use has been defined as permitting the complex for use as residence by another person on rent or without consideration. In this case what emerges is that ITC in tended to provide the accommodation built to their own employees. Therefore it is covered by the definition of 'personal use' in the explanation. The next question that arises is whether it gets excluded under the circumstances. The circular issued by C.B.E.& C. on 24-5-2010 relied upon by the learned counsel is relevant. Para3 of this circular which is relevant is reproduced below: "3. As per the information provided in your letter and during discussions, the Ministry of Urban Development (GOI) has directly engaged the NBCC for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 space, 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 intended for personal use as residence by such person. Explanation.- For the removal of doubts, it is here by declared that for the purposes of this clause,- (a) "personal use" includes permitting the complex for use as residence by an other person on rent or without consideration; (b) "residential unit" means a single house or a single apartment intended for use as a place of residence;" The above definition specifically excludes construction undertaken for personal use and such personal use includes permitting the complex for use as residence by another person. We find that the above exclusion clause covers the constructi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sued by the Board also, the appellant would be liable to pay service tax. He drew our attention to the letter relied upon by the learned advocate and submitted that in that letter, it has been clarified by the Board that if NBCC were to construct residential accommodation and handover to Govt. of India, there would be no liability to service tax. However, if NBCC were to entrust the work to sub-contractor and such sub-contractor constructed the residential complex and handed over to NBCC who in turn handed over the same to Govt. of India, service tax would be leviable. He drew our attention to the observation of learned Commissioner in his order wherein he has also held that this is not a case where residence is for personal use of a person and is not covered by the explanation given under clause (30a). We have considered this submission. We find ourselves in agreement that the contention of the learned advocate that service has been provided by the appellant to Govt. of India in this case and CPWD and Income Tax department cannot be treated as separate entities just because service has been provided to CPWD who in turn handed over the same to Income Tax department. Further, learne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (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 space, 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 intended for personal use as residence by such person. Explanation - For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that for the purposes of this clause - (a) "personal use" includes permitting the complex for use as residence by another person on rent or without consideration; (b) "residential unit" means a single house or a single apartment intended for use as a place of residence."] We have already explained the submission of learned advocate in brief and as explained by him in this case, residential complex constructed by the appellant is meant for use by the Income Tax department to provide the same on rent to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... act services and had come to the conclusion that in view of the fact that construction of new residential complex was included in the definition of works contract, the construction of residential complex on the basis of works contract, cannot be leviable to service tax prior to 1-6-2007. In view of the fact that this decision is applicable to the facts of the present case, this would also go in favour of the appellants. 5. Further, in view of the fact that on merits, we have held that service provided by the appellant is to be treated as service provided to Govt. of India directly and end use of the residential complex by Govt. of India is covered by the definition "Personal Use" in the explanation to definition of residential complex service, the other aspects need not be considered. In view of the discussion above, the impugned order cannot be sustained and accordingly the same is set-aside. Appeal is allowed with consequential relief to the appellant." 5. Relying on the aforesaid decision, we hold that the use of the residential complex by (GSPHCL) is excluded from the definition of residential Complex as "intended for personal use as residence by such persons". In view of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
