9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 927X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... complex services prior to 01.07.2010. The Tribunal referred to the CBEC Circular No.108/2/2009 dated 29.01.2009 wherein it has been clarified that the promoter/developer/builder is not liable to pay service tax for the period upto 30.06.2010 - In the case of M/s Krishna Homes the Tribunal set aside the demand for the period prior to 01.07.2010. The Tribunal in the said case held that it was only with effect from 01.07.2010, wherein an explanation was added under Section 65 (105) (zzzh), builder/promoter/developer was brought within the service tax net for construction services provided by them. In the present case part of the demand is prior to 01.07.2010. For the period after 01.07.2010 also, the demand has been made under Construction of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... negative and in favour of the appellant. The contracts being composite in nature and the demand having been raised under Construction of Residential Complex Services, the demand of service tax cannot sustain for the period after 01.07.2010 also. The impugned order is set aside - Appeal allowed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er's share as well as builder's share for the disputed period of 2009 to 2011. Show cause notice dated 14.10.2011 was issued proposing to demand the service tax on builder's share as well as land owner's share for the period from 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2011 along with interest and also for imposing penalty of the land owned by the landowners. After due process of law, the original authority confirmed the demand of service tax under Construction of Residential Complex Services along with interest and imposed penalties. Aggrieved by such order, the appellant is now before the Tribunal. 5. The Ld. Counsel Ms. Radhika Chandrasekhar appeared and argued for the appellant. It is submitted that the appellant had carried out the construction as a Prom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Nos.42436-42438/2018 dated 18.09.2018 had held that the demand of service tax on composite contract can be made only under Works Contract Services and not under Construction of Residential Complex Services. The said decision of the Tribunal in the case of Real Value Promoters Pvt Limited (supra) was followed by the Tribunal in the case of Jain Housing and Construction Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax vide Final Order Nos. 40077-40079/2023 dated 24.02.2023. The department filed an appeal against the said order of the Tribunal before the Hon'ble Apex Court. The appeal filed by the department was dismissed maintaining the decision of the Tribunal as reported (2023) 10 Centex 171 (S.C.) It is prayed that the demand may be set aside. 7. Ld ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... period upto 01.07.2010 there is no liability for paying tax under construction of residential complex services. The Tribunal in the case of Vijay Shanthi Builders Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai 2018 (9) G.S.T.L. 257 (Tri. Chennai) had occasion to consider the very same issue and followed the decision in the case of Krishna Homes Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhopal 2014 (34) S.T.R. 881 (Tri.-Del.) to hold that assessee who is a promoter/developer/builder is not liable to pay service tax prior to 01.07.2010. 12. For the period after 01.07.2010 also, the demand has been made under Construction of Residential Complex Services. Undisputedly the works rendered by the appellant are indivisible contracts which are composite ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
