Service tax demand against construction company fails for periods before legislative amendments defining taxable services

CESTAT Chennai held that service tax demand against a construction/development company cannot sustain for periods prior to specific legislative amendments. For pre-01.06.2007 period, following SC precedent in Larsen Toubro case, demand was unsustainable as works contract services definition was introduced only from 01.06.2007. For period up to 01.07.2010, demand under Commercial/Industrial Construction Services and Construction of Residential Services was held invalid for composite contracts, which could only be taxed under Works Contract Services from 01.07.2012. Appeal allowed, impugned order set aside.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of services provided by the appellant.
2. Applicability of service tax on composite indivisible contracts prior to 01.06.2007.
3. Liability of promoters/developers/builders for service tax prior to 01.07.2010.
4. Limitation and invocation of the extended period for issuing the show cause notice.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of Services Provided by the Appellant:
The appellant argued that their activities should be classified under "Works Contract Services," which involve both material and services and are indivisible. As per Section 65(105)(zzzza) of the Finance Act 1994, Works Contract Services were defined and came into force only from 01.06.2007. The appellant cited the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in Commissioner of Central Excise and Cus, Kerala vs. Larsen & Toubro Ltd., 2015 (39) STR 913, which held that composite contracts could not be taxed as there was no specific charging section for such contracts before 01.06.2007.

2. Applicability of Service Tax on Composite Indivisible Contracts Prior to 01.06.2007:
The Tribunal noted that the appellant's contracts were composite in nature, involving both materials and services. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Larsen & Toubro Ltd. held that service tax could not be levied on composite contracts before 01.06.2007. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the demand for the period up to 01.06.2007, affirming that the demand could not sustain.

3. Liability of Promoters/Developers/Builders for Service Tax Prior to 01.07.2010:
The appellant contended that as a promoter/developer/builder, they were not liable for service tax on residential projects before 01.07.2010, as clarified by the Board's Circular No.108/02/2009 dated 29.01.2009. The Tribunal referenced its decision in M/s. Krishna Homes versus CCE 2014 (34) STR 881, which supported this view. Additionally, the Tribunal's decision in the case of Real Value Promoters Pvt Limited and Jain Housing and Constructions Ltd., upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court, reinforced that service tax on composite contracts could only be demanded under Works Contract Services, not under Commercial or Industrial Construction Services or Construction of Residential Complex Services, for the period prior to 01.07.2012.

4. Limitation and Invocation of the Extended Period for Issuing the Show Cause Notice:
The appellant argued that the show cause notice was time-barred as there were no grounds for invoking the extended period. They claimed there was no suppression of facts with intent to evade tax, as they had cooperated with the department and provided all necessary details. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments and facts, found that the demand of service tax, interest, and penalties could not be sustained due to the lack of a clear charging section for composite contracts before 01.06.2007 and the clarification provided by the Board's Circular for the period before 01.07.2010.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the impugned order could not be upheld. The demand of service tax, interest, and penalties was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential reliefs, if any. The order was pronounced in the open court on 10.07.2024.

---