Appellant not liable for service tax in construction project due to bonafide belief and subcontractors' tax payment.

The court ruled in favor of the appellant, finding that they were not liable to pay service tax for the construction of the residential complex. The judgment highlighted the appellant's bonafide belief of non-liability, the interpretation of key definitions, and the fact that all sub-contractors had paid the tax. The court emphasized the applicability of a CBEC Circular supporting the appellant's position. Ultimately, the appellant successfully argued against the demand for service tax and penalties, leading to the appeal being allowed with consequential relief granted to the appellants.

---

---

Issues:
1. Liability to pay service tax for construction of residential complex.
2. Invocation of extended period for demand of service tax.
3. Interpretation of definitions of "construction of complex" and "residential complex."
4. Applicability of CBEC Circular on liability for service tax.
5. Bonafide belief of the appellant regarding service tax liability.
6. Liability of main contractor vs. sub-contractors for service tax payment.
7. Conclusion on the liability and limitation period for service tax demand.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, engaged in providing Construction of Residential Complex Service, undertook a project for a company, subcontracting the work to other parties. The demand for service tax of Rs. 1,55,77,725/- was raised for the period from March 2007 to March 2008, along with penalties under Sections 76, 77 & 78 of Finance Act 1994.

2. The appellant claimed a bonafide belief of non-liability for service tax, citing a letter seeking clarification from CBE&C. The issue of invoking the extended period for demand beyond the normal limitation period was raised, emphasizing that all sub-contractors had paid the tax.

3. The definitions of "construction of complex" and "residential complex" were crucial in determining the liability for service tax. The judgment analyzed the definitions to establish whether the complex built for the company fell under the exemption criteria of "personal use" as per the explanation provided.

4. The judgment referred to a CBEC Circular to support the argument that if the builder/developer constructs the complex himself, there would be no liability for service tax. The circular clarified the scenarios where service tax need not be paid by the builder/developer.

5. The appellant's bonafide belief, supported by correspondence with CBE&C seeking clarification, was considered in determining the liability for service tax. The judgment highlighted the importance of the appellant's belief and the subsequent clarification issued by the Board.

6. The argument regarding the liability of the main contractor versus the sub-contractors for service tax payment was discussed. The judgment emphasized that since all sub-contractors had paid the tax, the liability on the main contractor was questioned.

7. In conclusion, the judgment ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that they had made a strong case for their non-liability for service tax. The decision was based on the interpretation of definitions, applicability of CBEC Circular, bonafide belief, and the absence of liability due to sub-contractors fulfilling their tax obligations. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief to the appellants.

---