Tribunal directs deposit of Rs.18,00,000 in de facto contractor case

The Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's submissions regarding the applicant's activities as a de facto contractor. However, discrepancies in the facts presented were noted, requiring further examination during the appeal. The Tribunal directed the applicant to deposit Rs.18,00,000 within eight weeks, with balance dues predeposit waived and recovery stayed during the appeal. The decision indicated partial acceptance of the Revenue's arguments while allowing for a detailed examination of the case during the appeal process.

---

---

Issues involved: Tax demand on construction of residential complex; Tax demand on management, maintenance, and repair services.

Analysis:

1. Tax demand on construction of residential complex:
The applicant, engaged in constructing a residential complex, faced a tax demand of Rs.93,75,351 for the period 16.6.2005 to 31.3.2009. The demand was categorized into construction of residential complex and management, maintenance, and repair services. The applicant argued that the demand on construction services was not sustainable due to limitation and merit issues. It was highlighted that a refund claim had been allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals) for a previous period, indicating the Department's awareness of the applicant's activities. The applicant relied on a Board Circular to support their position, emphasizing that the activities were covered by the circular, and the refund claim had not been challenged by the Revenue.

2. Tax demand on management, maintenance, and repair services:
Regarding the tax demand on management, maintenance, and repair services, the applicant contended that after completing construction, maintenance charges were collected from flat owners, and maintenance activities were later handed over to the flat owners' association. Citing a Tribunal decision, the applicant argued that the demand was not sustainable as the amounts collected were reimbursement of expenditure, not consideration for services. The Revenue, however, argued that the applicant was the de facto contractor, engaging in construction activities with individual customers before entering into agreements for construction and sale. The Revenue asserted that the Board's circular applied when a landowner engaged a contractor, which was not the case here. The Revenue also claimed that the reimbursable expenses were not claimed by the applicant, distinguishing this case from the Tribunal decision.

3. Judgment and Order:
After hearing both parties and reviewing the records, the Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's submissions regarding the applicant's activities as a de facto contractor. However, discrepancies in the facts presented to the authority were noted, and a detailed examination was deemed necessary during the appeal hearing. The Tribunal directed the applicant to deposit Rs.18,00,000 within eight weeks, with the balance dues predeposit waived and recovery stayed during the appeal. The decision was based on the overall facts and circumstances of the case, indicating a partial acceptance of the Revenue's arguments while allowing further examination of the case details during the appeal process.

---