Housing board wins appeal against service tax demands on construction and property transfer services

CESTAT Chandigarh allowed the appeal filed by a state housing board against service tax demands. The tribunal held that service tax was not leviable on construction of complex services, citing HC precedent that circulars cannot provide machinery provisions for tax levy. The appellant was not acting as real estate agent, hence charges for property transfer authorization were not taxable. Being a statutory authority rather than business entity, the housing board was not liable for service tax under reverse charge mechanism on legal charges, manpower supply, and works contract services. The tribunal found no suppression or fraud by the government authority, making the entire demand time-barred under normal limitation period.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Service tax on Construction and sale of Complex/Houses/Flats.
2. Service tax on receipts under Real Estate Agent service.
3. Liability to pay service tax under Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM) on legal charges, manpower supply, and works contract services.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

First Issue: Service tax on Construction and sale of Complex/Houses/Flats

7.1 The appellant, a governmental authority constituted under the Housing Board Act, 1971, constructs and sells houses/flats. The Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Bharat Bhushan Gupta & Company held that the Board is a governmental authority under State control.

7.2 By virtue of Finance Act, 2010, an explanation was added to Section 65(105)(zzzh) expanding the scope of taxable service. Construction intended for sale by a builder before completion certificate is deemed a service.

7.3 The Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006, lack machinery to ascertain service value in composite contracts involving land sale. The Orissa High Court in Larsen and Toubro Limited ruled that statutory provisions must provide for tax computation.

7.4 The Delhi High Court in Suresh Kumar Bansal held that the absence of statutory machinery to exclude non-service components from taxable value invalidates service tax on composite contracts.

7.5 The Tribunal follows the Delhi High Court's decision unless overturned by the Supreme Court.

7.6 The Tribunal in M/s G S Promoters & Developers and Rajeev Chopra cases reiterated the above principle.

7.7 Conclusion: Service tax is not leviable on 'Construction of Complex Services'.

Second Issue: Service tax on Real Estate Agent Service

8.1 The appellant is not a real estate agent as defined under Section 65(88) & (89) of the Act, which involves services related to sale, purchase, leasing, or renting of real estate.

8.2 The appellant's activities do not involve providing advice, consultancy, or technical assistance in real estate transactions.

8.3 The Tribunal consistently held that charges for authorizing property transfer before sale do not constitute 'Real Estate Agent Services'.

8.4 The Tribunal in Commissioner of Service Tax, New Delhi vs. Ansal Properties and Infrastructures Ltd held that such charges are not for services provided as an agent.

8.5 Conclusion: The appellant's receipts/income do not fall under 'Real Estate Agent Services'.

Third Issue: Liability of service tax under Reverse Charge Mechanism

9.1 The appellant is not liable for service tax on legal charges, manpower supply, and works contract services under RCM as it is not a business entity.

9.2 The Supreme Court in Shri Ramtanu Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. distinguished between a Business Corporation and a Governmental Authority Body Corporate.

9.3 The Punjab & Haryana High Court in Bharat Bhushan Gupta & Company held that the Haryana Housing Board is a governmental authority, exempting it from service tax under Notification No. 25/2012-ST.

9.4 The department accepted this decision, granting refunds to contractors.

9.5 Conclusion: The demand of service tax under RCM is not sustainable.

Extended Period of Limitation

10.1 The appellant provided all required information and maintained audited accounts, negating suppression or fraud.

10.2 The Supreme Court consistently held that government authorities lack intent to evade tax.

10.3 In Commissioner vs. Electricity Pole Manufacturing, the Supreme Court held that state-funded units typically do not evade tax.

10.4 The Tribunal in U.P. State Sugar & Cane Dev. Corpn. Ltd. held that public-sector undertakings do not suppress facts to evade tax.

10.5 The Tribunal in M.P. Water & Power Management Institute set aside demands as barred by limitation due to the absence of suppression.

10.6 Conclusion: The entire demand is barred by limitation.

Final Judgment:
The impugned orders are set aside, and the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed with consequential relief. The appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed.

---