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>Abatement under N/N. 1/2006-ST allowed for residential complex services including preferred location and external development charges</h1> <h3>M/s Jaypee Infratech Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Goods & Services Tax, Noida</h3> CESTAT Allahabad allowed the appeal regarding disallowance of abatement under N/N. 1/2006-ST for residential complex services during July 2012 to ... Disallowance of abatement claimed by the Appellant under N/N. 1/2006-ST dated 01.03.2006 - period from July, 2012 to September, 2013 - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- Appellant is provider of Residential Complex Services which are defined under Finance Act, 1994 and w.e.f. 01.07.2012 the said definition of Individual Services does not exist on the statute and w.e.f. 01.07.2012, a new concept of negative list was introduced wherein whatever has not been included in the negative list is treated as a service. The facts of the present case are squarely covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of LOGIX INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD., SHREE CHETAN SHARMA VICE PRESIDENT, SHRI SAWAN KUMAR MANAGER (TAXATION) , SHRI SAMEER SATIJA, DGM (ACCOUNTS) VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & S.T., NOIDA [2018 (11) TMI 462 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD] where it was held that 'the components such as preferred location charges, external development charges etc. are part and parcel and for various elements of the main service which is Residential Complex Service and therefore the entire consideration received by the appellants are eligible for abatement under said Notification No.26/2012-S.T.' The impugned order cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside - The appeal filed by the Appellant is allowed. Issues:The appeal challenges the Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Central Goods & Services Tax, Noida, regarding the demand for service tax on various charges collected by the Appellant for the development of a project. The main issue revolves around whether the charges such as IDC, EDC, PLC, ESSC, and TC are eligible for abatement under Notification No.26/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 or if they should be subjected to service tax.Analysis:1. Background and Facts:The Appellant, a special purpose vehicle for a concession agreement, is engaged in constructing and selling residential properties. The Department issued a show cause notice proposing service tax on charges collected from home buyers. The Appellant claimed abatement under Notification No.1/2006-ST, which was initially allowed. However, a subsequent SCN was issued for the period from July 2012 to March 2015, challenging the abatement claimed on charges like PLC, EDC, IDC, ESSC, and TC.2. Arguments by Appellant and Department:The Appellant argued that the charges are part of the main service, Residential Complex Service, and eligible for abatement. They cited a previous order and a tribunal decision supporting their stance. On the other hand, the Department contended that certain charges were not covered under the abatement notification and should be fully subjected to service tax.3. Tribunal's Analysis and Decision:The Tribunal examined the provisions of Section 66F of the Finance Act, 1994, and the concept of bundled services. Referring to a previous tribunal decision, the Tribunal held that charges like EDC, IDC, PLC, and ESSC are integral to the main service of Residential Complex Service and cannot be treated separately. Therefore, the entire consideration received by the Appellant was eligible for abatement under Notification No.26/2012-ST.4. Previous Tribunal Decision and Conclusion:The Tribunal also referenced a previous order in the Appellant's case, where the demand for service tax was set aside, emphasizing that the charges were included in the taxable value, and the issue was a matter of interpretation rather than suppression. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and granting consequential relief to the Appellant.5. Final Decision:Based on the above analysis and legal precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned order could not be sustained. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Appellant was allowed with consequential relief, in line with the law. The decision was pronounced in open court, dismissing the Department's prayer for out of turn hearing as infructuous.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
