Appeal allowed: Row houses not residential complex. Appellant not liable for service tax.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the appellant, holding that the construction of individual row houses did not qualify as a residential complex under the Construction of Residential Complex Service category. The appellant was found not liable to pay service tax, as the construction did not meet the statutory definition of a residential complex. The decision was supported by legal precedents and interpretations of relevant tax provisions, providing relief to the appellant and granting consequential benefits.

---

---

Issues:
Whether the appellant is liable to pay service tax under the category of Construction of Residential Complex Service for constructing row houses for the Government of Chhattisgarh.

Analysis:
The issue in this case revolved around determining the liability of the appellant to pay service tax under the category of Construction of Residential Complex Service for constructing row houses for the Government of Chhattisgarh. The appellant had constructed residential houses under a contract with the Chhattisgarh Housing Board, which were later allocated to bidi-making laborers below the poverty line by the Ministry of Housing and Poverty Alleviation, Government of India. The Assistant Commissioner initially held that the activity was not taxable under Construction of Complex Service, emphasizing that the construction was part of a welfare scheme for bidi-making laborers and not for commercial purposes. The Circular No. 8010/2004-ST was referred to, highlighting that constructions for non-commercial purposes, such as government buildings for residential or civic amenities, are generally not taxable. The Commissioner (Appeals) disagreed and held the appellant liable for service tax as a sub-contractor under the Construction of Residential Complex Service category.

Upon appeal, the Tribunal analyzed the facts and relevant legal principles. It was noted that the appellant had constructed individual row houses, not a residential complex as defined by the statute. The definition of a residential complex includes buildings with 12 or more residential units in each block with common facilities. Citing a precedent from NCR Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.C.E. & S.T., the Tribunal emphasized that the appellant's construction did not meet the criteria for a residential complex. Additionally, the Tribunal referenced a judgment from the Hon'ble Patna High Court in Hindustan Dorr Oliver Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar, which clarified the concept of one transaction or sale even when work is done by a sub-contractor. Applying this analogy to service tax provisions, the Tribunal concluded that there was no separate sale from the sub-contractor to the main contractor and then to the consumer. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision and ruling in favor of the appellant.

In conclusion, the judgment clarified that the appellant was not liable to pay service tax under the Construction of Residential Complex Service category as the construction of individual row houses did not qualify as a residential complex under the statutory definition. The Tribunal's decision was supported by legal precedents and interpretations of the relevant tax provisions, ultimately providing relief to the appellant and granting consequential benefits accordingly.

---