9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 1157X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Service tax should have been collected at the time each installment was paid by the purchaser and not when the last installment was paid. The Principal Commissioner has not examined this issue from this perspective and therefore, the matter would have to be remanded to enable him to examine when the liability to pay service tax arose and when service tax was actually deposited by the appellant and whether interest was liable to be paid by the appellant. The matter is remitted to the Principal Commissioner to separately examine the factual position prior to July 01, 2010 and post July 01, 2010 after hearing the appellant - Appeal disposed off. - Service Tax No. 52146 of 2016 - FINAL ORDER NO. 50779/ 2023 - Dated:- 2-6-2023 - MR. DIL ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e last installment was paid by them and not when the earlier installments were paid by the purchaser. 5. As the dispute in the present appeal relates to the period prior to July 01, 2010 and also post July 01, 2010, it would be necessary to examine the issue separately. 6. It is not in dispute that prior to July 01, 2010 service tax was not leviable on construction of residential complex service . This fact has been noticed by the Principal Commissioner in paragraphs 20 to 21 of the impugned order, which paragraphs are reproduced below: 20. Explanation was added to section 65(105)(zzzh), effective from 01.07.2010. The text of the explanation is as under: Explanation. For the purposes of this sub-clause, construction of a c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... when they collected the installment from their customer. Since the amount of Service Tax has already been collected by the Notice from their customer they are bound to pay the same to the department in terms of Section 73A of the Act. They are also liable to pay interest on the said amount in terms of Section 73B of the Act. 8. After having so noticed, the Principal Commissioner in paragraph 25 ordered that since the amount of service tax amounting Rs. 5,19,21,270/- for the period April 2006 to March 2011 was not paid by the appellant, it was liable to be recovered from the appellant by invoking the extended period of limitation contemplated under the proviso to section 73(1) of the Finance Act with interest and penalty. The said paragr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here was any delay in deposit of the amount so as to attract interest. For this period, penalty could not have been imposed as there was no liability to pay service tax. 12. For the period from July 01, 2010, onwards, the situation is different because the appellant is liable to pay service tax. Service tax should have been collected at the time each installment was paid by the purchaser and not when the last installment was paid. The Principal Commissioner has not examined this issue from this perspective and therefore, the matter would have to be remanded to enable him to examine when the liability to pay service tax arose and when service tax was actually deposited by the appellant and whether interest was liable to be paid by the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
