2025 (1) TMI 1207 - AT - Service Tax

Property developer not liable for service tax on residential complex construction amounts received from customers

M/s. Golden Preethi Property Developers Versus Commissioner of GST and Central Excise Chennai I Commissionerate

M/s. Golden Preethi Property Developers Versus Commissioner of GST and Central Excise Chennai I Commissionerate - TMI ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe primary issue considered in this appeal was whether the appellant, a property developer, was liable to pay service tax under the category of 'Construction of Residential Complex Service' for the period from April 2009 to June 2010. The secondary issue was whether the penalty imposed by the original adjudicating authority was justified.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS1. Liability to Pay Service Tax under 'Construction of Residential Complex Service'Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The legal framework involved Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, which pertains to the demand of service tax. The appellant relied on various precedents, including decisions by the Supreme Court and Tribunals, which clarified the applicability of service tax on construction services, particularly in cases involving composite contracts.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal examined whether the appellant, as a developer, was liable for service tax when the actual construction services were rendered by a contractor. It considered the CBEC Circular No. 108/02/2009, which clarified that service tax liability would fall on the contractor if services were provided by a contractor, not the promoter.Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal noted that the appellant had engaged M/s. Golden Homes Pvt. Ltd. as a contractor for the construction services. The Tribunal also referenced its own previous decision in favor of the appellant for an earlier period, where it had set aside a similar demand.Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the legal principles from the CBEC circular and previous decisions to determine that the appellant, who merely sold completed flats, was not liable for service tax. The Tribunal emphasized that the service was rendered by the contractor, and the appellant's role was limited to selling the undivided share of land (UDS) to buyers.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The appellant argued that the impugned order was inconsistent with prior decisions and ignored relevant CBEC circulars. The respondent contended that the appellant was liable due to non-compliance with the Act. The Tribunal favored the appellant's arguments, citing judicial discipline and consistency with previous rulings.Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the demand for service tax from the appellant was not legally sustainable, as the actual service provider was the contractor, and the appellant was not liable under the 'Construction of Residential Complex Service' category.2. Imposition of PenaltyRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The penalty was initially imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, which deals with penalties for tax evasion.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The lower appellate authority had already set aside the penalty, recognizing that the appellant had not intentionally evaded tax.Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal found no evidence of willful evasion by the appellant, as the service tax liability was not applicable to them under the circumstances.Application of Law to Facts: Given the Tribunal's finding that the appellant was not liable for the service tax, the imposition of a penalty was deemed inappropriate.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The appellant argued against the penalty based on the lack of service tax liability, while the respondent supported the penalty citing contravention of the Act. The Tribunal sided with the appellant.Conclusions: The Tribunal upheld the decision to set aside the penalty, aligning with its conclusion that the appellant was not liable for the service tax.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSThe Tribunal held that the demand for service tax on the appellant was unsustainable, as the service was rendered by a contractor, not the appellant. The Tribunal emphasized that the CBEC circulars and previous judicial decisions supported this interpretation. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, granting consequential benefits to the appellant.Core Principles Established: The Tribunal reinforced the principle that service tax liability in construction services falls on the actual service provider (contractor) and not on the promoter or developer when the promoter merely sells completed units. It also highlighted the importance of judicial consistency and adherence to CBEC circulars.Final Determinations on Each Issue: The Tribunal determined that the appellant was not liable for service tax under the 'Construction of Residential Complex Service' and that the penalty imposed was unjustified. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside.