2013 (12) TMI 974 - AT - Service Tax

Liability for service tax in construction of residential complex under joint development agreement

Cotton City Developers Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & ST, Coimbatore

The case addressed the issue of liability for service tax on the construction of a residential complex under a joint development agreement. The Revenue ... Sta application - Construction of residential complex - Held that:- appellant had engaged a contractor and the contractor had paid tax to the tune of Rs.1.80 crores. This submission, which required detailed verification, appears to have influenced the Bench to call for a lower level of deposit. For the period under dispute in the present appeal, no such evidence has been produced and therefore a higher amount of pre-deposit should be called for since the matter is already decided against a similarly placed assesses in the case of LCS City Makers Ltd. Vs CST Chennai - [2012 (6) TMI 363 - CESTAT, CHENNAI] - Prima facie case against assessee - Stay denied. Issues:1. Whether service tax is payable on the construction activity of a residential complex under a joint development agreementRs.2. Whether the appellant is required to make a pre-deposit of the demanded tax amount for admission of appealRs.Analysis:Issue 1:The case involved the question of liability to pay service tax on the construction activity of a residential complex under a joint development agreement. The applicants contended that the transaction was essentially a sale of flats without any service provider and recipient for the construction activities. In contrast, the Revenue argued that service tax was applicable as the applicant provided the service of construction to the buyers of the land rights. The Revenue issued a demand for unpaid tax for a specific period. After adjudication, an amount was confirmed along with a penalty. The appellant challenged this order by filing an appeal before the Tribunal and requested a waiver of pre-deposit for the admission of the appeal.Issue 2:Regarding the pre-deposit requirement, the advocate for the applicant referred to a previous case where a lower deposit was ordered for a similar project. However, the Revenue opposed this request by highlighting the lack of evidence for a lower deposit in the current case. The Revenue pointed out a previous case where a higher deposit was mandated for a similarly situated assessee. After considering the submissions from both sides, the Tribunal found a strong case in favor of the Revenue. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the applicant to make a pre-deposit of a specified amount within a given period. Upon compliance, the balance dues arising from the impugned order would be waived, and the collection stayed during the pendency of the appeal.