TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal upholds service tax demand on construction activities, rejects arguments on service provider relationship and time-barring</h1> <h3>M/s. Golden Constructions Versus CST, Chennai</h3> M/s. Golden Constructions Versus CST, Chennai - 2014 (35) S.T.R. 987 (Tri. - Chennai) Issues:1. Whether the construction activities carried out by the appellant for a certain period were subject to service tax.2. Whether the demand for service tax on the construction activities is sustainable.3. Whether the exclusion clause in the definition of 'residential complex' under Section 65(91a) applies to the case.4. Whether the appellant is eligible for abatement towards the value of materials used in the construction activity.5. Whether the demand for service tax is time-barred due to suppression of facts by the appellant.Analysis:1. The appellant was engaged in the construction of residential complexes and did not pay service tax for the period in question. The Revenue contended that the activities amounted to taxable services. Two show cause notices were issued, demanding unpaid service tax. The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by both sides and noted the existence of a service provider-service recipient relationship based on the contracts for construction services.2. The appellant argued that there was no service provider-service recipient relationship at the construction stage as the land was still in their name. The appellant also claimed that the constructed flats were for personal use, falling under an exclusion clause. However, the Tribunal found the arguments unconvincing, emphasizing the contractual nature of the construction services provided to prospective buyers.3. The exclusion clause in the definition of 'residential complex' was examined. The Tribunal clarified that the clause applies when a complex is constructed by one person for their own residence. In this case, the individual residential units were constructed for the buyers' residential use, not for the appellant's residence. Therefore, the exclusion clause did not exempt the construction activities from service tax liability.4. The Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's eligibility for abatement towards the value of materials used in the construction activity. However, the adjudicating authority had not extended this abatement, which the appellant was prima facie eligible for. The Tribunal found this as a valid point in favor of the appellant.5. The Revenue argued that the demand was not time-barred due to suppression of facts by the appellant. The Tribunal agreed, considering the investigation process and voluntary disclosure. The Tribunal directed the appellant to make a pre-deposit within a specified timeframe, balancing the financial hardship claimed by the appellant and the interest of the Revenue.This detailed analysis of the judgment covers the key issues involved, the arguments presented by both parties, and the Tribunal's reasoning and decision on each issue.
TaxTMI 