2024 (12) TMI 1639 - AT - Service Tax

Appeal allows CENVAT credit for input services before 1.7.2011; no service tax for activities before 1.7.2010; construction demand unsustainable

M/s. GV Properties Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Bengaluru.

CESTAT BANGALORE - AT allowed the appeal. The Tribunal held the appellant entitled to CENVAT credit on input services for the period prior to 01.07.2011 ... Levy of service tax - amount collected and retained towards cost for providing additional power from BESCOM power supply - service tax under Commercial or Industrial Construction service without any abatement on the sale of developed property to the landowners as per Joint Development agreement - eligibility to avail CENVAT credit on various input services. CENVAT credit on various input services - HELD THAT:- On the input services availed by the Appellant for the period prior to 01.07.2011, while renting out the property, the Appellant is eligible for the Cenvat credit and denial of the Cenvat credit is unsustainable. The issue is also considered in the matter of CC Vs. M/s. DLF Ltd [2022 (12) TMI 139 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] and also in M/s. Bellsonica Auto Components India [2015 (7) TMI 930 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT], M/s. Golf links Software Park, RMZ Infotech, Bharti Realty Limited. Service tax liability prior to 01.07.2010 - HELD THAT:- The issue was considered by the Tribunal in the matter of CC, Chandigarh Vs. M/s UB Construction [2014 (1) TMI 402 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], wherein it is held that 'in the light of the admitted factual situation that constructions on behalf of the assessee were during the period prior to 1-7-2010 when the explanation was not yet appended to Section 65(106) (zzzh) of the Act, there is no liability on the assessee to remit tax under the then extant legislative regime. On the aforesaid analysis the impugned order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) is impeccable and warrants no interference.' Commercial or Industrial Construction service - method of valuation - HELD THAT:- The Appellant have a good case on merit, the demand of Rs. 2.68,42,572/- under 'Commercial or Industrial Construction' services is also unsustainable, since the appellant has transferred the property to the landowner after the issuance of Occupancy Certificate (OC). Further it is found that in the matter of M/s UB Construction [2014 (1) TMI 402 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], it is categorically held that amendment carried out by Notification No. 24/2010-ST dated 22.06.2010 w.e.f from 01.07.2010 cannot be considered with retrospective effect and it will only be prospective. Thus, considering the facts and circumstances of the case the appeal is sustainable - appeal allowed. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether service tax is leviable on amounts collected and retained as deposit for providing additional power (additional KVA) to a tenant, where part of the deposit is repayable and the balance retained and accounted as miscellaneous income over five years. 2. Whether CENVAT credit on various input services (including architects, construction, management consultancy, real estate agent, erection and commissioning, and other services used in setting up premises) is admissible against output service tax liability on renting of immovable property for the relevant periods. 3. Whether service tax is leviable on construction services provided to landowners under Joint Development Agreements (exchange of developed property for landowner share), including (a) whether the transaction constitutes a taxable construction/works contract service or an exchange of immovable property, (b) correct valuation (gross value vs. deduction for value of goods/materials and applicability of abatement), and (c) retrospective application of legislative amendment and invocation of extended limitation/penalty. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS - 1. Service tax on deposit retained for additional power Legal framework: Service tax liability depends on whether the amount constitutes consideration for a taxable service; specific exemption exists for transmission and distribution of electricity by a person to any other person (Notification exempting such services). Precedent treatment: The adjudicating authority treated the retained deposit as consideration subject to service tax; appellant relied on exemption for transmission/distribution of electricity. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal examined the nature of the collected amount - a deposit for provision of additional KVA from the electricity supplier via the premises owner - and noted that the service in issue pertains to provision/arrangement of additional power. Where the service falls within transmission/distribution of electricity exempted by Notification No. 45/2010-ST (as applied during the relevant period), such amounts are not consideration for a taxable service under service tax law. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - amounts retained as compensation specifically for provision of additional electrical power that fall within the exempted category are not taxable as service tax. Obiter - allocation/accounting over five years does not convert an exempt activity into taxable consideration. Conclusion: Demand of service tax on the retained deposit for additional power (amount in issue) is not tenable and is set aside. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS - 2. Admissibility of CENVAT credit on input services used in construction/setting up premises Legal framework: Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 (definition of 'input service') prior to 01.04.2011 included services used by a provider of taxable service for providing an output service and expressly included services used in relation to setting up premises of the provider of output service; post 01.04.2011 the definition was narrowed. Precedent treatment: Revenue sought to disallow credits based on Board Circular No.98/1/2008 and subsequent interpretations; Tribunal referred to prior bench decisions (including Golf Links Software Park and Oberon Edifices) holding that input services used for setting up premises are admissible credits against renting of immovable property output. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal analysed the statutory definition extant for the relevant period and concluded that input services used in setting up the premises of the service provider are expressly covered and admissible as input services. Denial based solely on the Circular and by treating the activities as construction/works contract beyond the scope of input credit was inconsistent with the rule as it stood prior to the amendment. The Tribunal distinguished the post-amendment narrowing of definition and noted that the appellant had not claimed credits for excluded categories after 01.04.2011. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - for the relevant pre-01.04.2011 period, CENVAT credit on input services used in setting up premises for providing taxable renting services is admissible; denial of such credits is unsustainable. Obiter - reliance on Circulars cannot override the clear statutory wording of Rule 2(l) for that period. Conclusion: Denial of CENVAT credit on the input services for the relevant period is unsustainable; the appellant is eligible for credit in accordance with Rule 2(l) as it stood prior to amendment. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS - 3. Service tax on construction to landowners under Joint Development Agreements; valuation; retrospective effect; limitation/penalty Legal framework: Service tax liability for builders/developers is governed by relevant entries including works contract and commercial/industrial construction services; Finance Act, 2010 inserted an explanation to expand taxable scope prospectively from its effective date; Notification for abatement (Notification No.1/2006-ST) permits deduction/abatement for value of goods/materials in certain contexts; exemption Notification (No.36/2010-ST read with Ministry letter) protects services where consideration was received prior to 01.07.2010. Precedent treatment: The Tribunal considered authorities holding (i) the Explanation inserted by Finance Act, 2010 expanding taxable scope is prospective (Bombay HC in Maharashtra Chamber of Housing Industry and decisions following that principle), (ii) composite works contracts fall under 'works contract' service and must be valued accordingly (Supreme Court in Larsen & Toubro and Tribunal decisions), and (iii) decisions where transfer to landowners after issuance of Occupancy Certificate (OC) was treated as not attracting service tax prior to the amendment. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal assessed factual matrix - construction completed and transfer to landowners occurred after issuance of OC. It found that: (a) where transfer/delivery to landowner occurs upon completion/OC issuance, the transaction is an exchange of immovable property rather than a taxable construction service under the pre-amendment law; (b) the Explanation introduced by Finance Act, 2010 expanding liability is prospective and cannot be applied retrospectively to impose tax on services rendered before 01.07.2010; (c) valuation by the revenue on basis of land cost recognized in books without proper basis and without deducting value of goods/materials or applying statutory abatement is unsustainable; and (d) invocation of extended period and penalty is not justified where the Department itself had previously dropped related proceedings for earlier periods and no suppression of facts is established. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - service tax cannot be levied on the transfer of developed property to landowners under joint development arrangements for constructions completed and transferred upon issuance of OC where the activity falls prior to the effective prospective operation of the Finance Act, 2010 explanation; valuation must account for goods/materials and applicable abatement where composite contracts are involved; extended limitation and penalty cannot be sustained absent suppression or applicable legal basis. Obiter - administrative reliance on cost figures in books as sole basis for taxable value is impermissible without legal and evidentiary basis. Conclusion: The demand of service tax assessed under 'Commercial or Industrial Construction' services (amount in dispute) is unsustainable and set aside; valuation methodology applied by the adjudicating authority is incorrect; invocation of extended limitation and penalties is unsustainable on the facts. CONSEQUENTIAL DIRECTIONS AND OVERALL OUTCOME 1. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside (a) service tax demand on retained deposit for additional power, (b) denial of CENVAT credit on input services for the relevant pre-amendment period, and (c) service tax demand on construction services provided to landowners under the facts (transfer after OC), with consequential reliefs as per law. 2. Findings relied on contemporaneous statutory text of Rule 2(l) (pre-01.04.2011), settled principles that legislative clarification/expansion by Finance Act, 2010 is prospective, and established precedent on classification/valuation of composite contracts.