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>Tribunal Partially Allows Appeal: Tax Demand for Construction Services Overturned, Maintenance Service Demand Upheld.</h1> <h3>M/s. Triumph Realtors India Private Limited Versus The Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Coimbatore</h3> M/s. Triumph Realtors India Private Limited Versus The Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Coimbatore - TMI Issues:1. Demand of service tax for the period from November 2008 to 30.06.2012 under Construction of Complex Service (CCS).2. Demand of service tax for the period from 1.7.2012 to 31.3.2013 under Section 65B (44) of the Finance Act, 1994.3. Demand confirmed under Management, Maintenance and Repair Service (MMRS).Issue 1 - Demand of service tax for the period from November 2008 to 30.06.2012 under Construction of Complex Service (CCS):The appellant, engaged in construction services, faced a demand for service tax for the mentioned period. The Tribunal analyzed the nature of the services provided by the appellant and referred to relevant legal precedents. It was established that for the period up to 1.7.2010, the appellant was not liable to pay service tax. For the subsequent period, the demand under CCS could not be sustained due to the composite nature of the contracts involving both goods supply and service rendition. The Tribunal relied on various judgments, including Real Value Promoters Pvt. Ltd., Jain Housing & Construction Ltd., and others. Consequently, the demand for the period up to 30.06.2012 was set aside.Issue 2 - Demand of service tax for the period from 1.7.2012 to 31.3.2013 under Section 65B (44) of the Finance Act, 1994:The demand for this period was based on Section 65B (44) of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant argued for reconsideration of the quantification of service tax due to a retrospective amendment in Rule 2A of Determination of Service Tax Valuation Rules in 2017. The Tribunal agreed that this issue required remand to the adjudicating authority for quantification based on the amended provisions of Rule 2A. The appellant's claim of not collecting tax from customers was noted, and the issue of penalty was left open for further consideration.Issue 3 - Demand confirmed under Management, Maintenance and Repair Service (MMRS):The demand under MMRS was not contested by the appellant. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the demand, interest, and penalties related to this issue.In conclusion, the Tribunal modified the impugned order by setting aside the demand, interest, and penalties imposed for the period from November 2008 to 30.06.2012 entirely. The demand for service tax on construction services for the period from 1.7.2012 to 31.3.2013 was remanded to the adjudicating authority for quantification. The issue regarding MMRS was upheld. As a result, the appeal was partly allowed and partly remanded for further proceedings as per the detailed analysis provided for each issue.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
