https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784760 Service tax liability under Construction of Residential Complex Service was held to arise by operation of the Finance Act, 1994 and not on collection from buyers; under Rule 6 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 tax was payable monthly, hence delayed payment attracted statutory interest, and the demand with interest was upheld. Amounts retained from buyers as deposits for onward remittance to the RWA were not "consideration" for Management, Maintenance and Repair, so the demand under that head was set aside. Lease rent collected for remittance to the State, being rent charged by the State on leasehold land and not for any letting by the assessee, was not taxable as Renting of Immovable Property Service, so that demand was set aside. Penalties were quashed by applying s.80 for reasonable cause. en-us Thu, 08 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 12 Jan 2026 09:31:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784760 Service tax liability under Construction of Residential Complex Service was held to arise by operation of the Finance Act, 1994 and not on collection from buyers; under Rule 6 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 tax was payable monthly, hence delayed payment attracted statutory interest, and the demand with interest was upheld. Amounts retained from buyers as deposits for onward remittance to the RWA were not "consideration" for Management, Maintenance and Repair, so the demand under that head was set aside. Lease rent collected for remittance to the State, being rent charged by the State on leasehold land and not for any letting by the assessee, was not taxable as Renting of Immovable Property Service, so that demand was set aside. Penalties were quashed by applying s.80 for reasonable cause. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 08 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784760