Tribunal sets aside Service Tax demand on residential complex construction services, citing lack of complex construction criteria.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the demand for Service Tax on the construction of residential complex services. The Tribunal held that the activity of the assessee did not fall under the category of construction of complex services as they only sold individual plots and not constructed a complex with more than 12 units. The demand was deemed unsustainable based on legal precedents, and consequential benefits were provided in accordance with the law.

---

---

Issues:
The judgment involves the issue of levy of Service Tax on the activity of construction of residential complex services without obtaining registration, failure to pay Service Tax, and non-filing of S.T.-3 returns.

Issue 1:
The Revenue contended that the assessee provided construction services without obtaining registration, failed to pay Service Tax, and did not file S.T.-3 returns, justifying the demand of Service Tax under construction of complex services.

The Commissioner held that the Service Tax on construction of residential complex service was applicable from a certain date, and due to the assessee providing the service before that date without proper registration, the extended period of limitation under the proviso to section 73(1) of the Finance Act was invoked.

Issue 2:
The assessee argued that they formed a layout for individual houses, entered into tripartite agreements, and only sold plots to individual buyers, not constructing a complex with more than 12 units.

The appellant contended that the activity could not be taxed under construction of complex service based on a Supreme Court ruling, emphasizing that they only constructed individual residential houses as per approved plans, not a residential complex.

Issue 3:
The Ld. Consultant highlighted that the demand for Service Tax was not sustainable based on the nature of the contracts and the abatement provided, citing relevant legal precedents.

The Tribunal concluded that the demand could not be upheld based on the Supreme Court decision and subsequent rulings by various benches of the CESTAT, setting aside the demand confirmed in the impugned order.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, stating that the demand confirmed in the impugned order was not sustainable based on legal precedents and set it aside, providing consequential benefits as per the law.

---