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>Service Tax Appeal: Jurisdiction Change Granted in Tax Dispute Case</h1> <h3>Vishranti Homes (P) Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-IV (nor sought to be changed as Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai)</h3> Vishranti Homes (P) Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-IV (nor sought to be changed as Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai) - 2014 (34) ... Issues:1. Jurisdictional change request by Commissioner of Service Tax Chennai.2. Tax liability dispute related to commercial and industrial construction services.3. Separate analysis for Jayanth Tech Park Project.4. Dispute regarding Joint Development Agreement and service tax liability.5. Arguments on tax applicability under different service tax entries.6. Dispute on construction done on land belonging to another party.7. Disagreement on valuation of services provided.8. Time-barred claim and disclosure issues.9. Analysis of Swarup Heritage Project.10. Dispute over service tax on owner's share of residential complex.11. Comparison of land value and services rendered.12. Prima facie views on tax liability and payment dates.13. Consideration of abatement benefits and CENVAT credit.14. Direction for pre-deposit amount and waiver.Analysis:1. The judgment starts with a jurisdictional issue where the Commissioner of Service Tax Chennai requested a name change in the appeal. The tribunal granted the request to ensure correct party representation in future proceedings.2. The case involves a tax dispute regarding commercial and industrial construction services provided by the appellant. The Revenue alleged non-payment of tax liabilities for projects executed between May 2006 to March 2008, resulting in a significant demand and penalties.3. The tribunal decided to analyze the issues separately for the Jayanth Tech Park Project and the Swarup Heritage Project due to differing circumstances and arguments presented.4. For the Jayanth Tech Park Project, the dispute centered around the applicability of service tax entries and the Joint Development Agreement. The appellant argued for tax payment under a specific entry, while Revenue contended for a different tax liability based on construction services provided.5. Various arguments were presented regarding the timing of payments, CENVAT credit claims, abatement benefits, and whether the demand was time-barred. The tribunal considered these arguments in detail to assess the tax liability accurately.6. The Swarup Heritage Project involved a similar dispute over service tax on the owner's share of a residential complex. Arguments focused on the valuation of services provided, comparing land values, and determining the tax liability accurately.7. The tribunal provided prima facie views on the tax liability, payment dates, abatement benefits, and the need for detailed scrutiny on time-barred claims and disclosures to ensure a fair assessment.8. Ultimately, the tribunal directed the appellant to make a specific deposit, waived a portion of the pre-deposit for appeal admission, and stayed the collection of remaining dues during the appeal process.This detailed analysis covers the key issues and arguments presented in the judgment, providing a comprehensive overview of the tax disputes and the tribunal's decisions.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
