2010 (10) TMI 504

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he period 16-6-2005 to 31-3-2008, the department demanded service tax from the appellant by show-cause notice dated 18-4-2007 alleging that they had provided 'Commercial or Industrial Construction' Service and 'Construction of Complex' Service during the above period but did not pay appropriate amount of service tax in respect of the construction works which were got done through their contractors. The works in question were undertaken in terms of agreements between the appellant-company and various beneficiaries (prospective buyers). In one category of transaction, the appellant purchased land and transferred possession thereof to others (contractors) who constructed commercial/residential buildings, which were subsequently disposed of by ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....which was disposed by a remand order dated 16-3-2009. The learned Commissioner was required to pass fresh order in adjudication of the dispute. Pursuant to the remand order of this Bench, the learned Commissioner also took up two subsequent show-cause notices dated 29-7-2008 and 21-10-2008 and, after hearing the assessee, passed a common order in adjudication of all the three show-cause notices. The challenge, mainly, is against the demand of service tax covered by the three show-cause notices. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Jt. CDR for the Revenue, we note that the appellant has disowned tax liability inasmuch as the contractors paid appropriate service tax and there was no liability for the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....el has argued that, prior to the enactment of the above Explanations, a builder was not a service provider and that a builder could be deemed to be service provider only with effect from 1-7-2010 and, therefore, the demand of service tax on the appellant for the periods of dispute, which are admittedly prior to 1-7-2010 cannot be sustained in law. The learned counsel has also claimed support from Board's Circular No. 108/2/2009-S.T, dated 29-1-2009. The learned counsel has also emphasized the point that the department cannot demand service tax from the appellant in respect of a transaction, in relation to which the contractors paid service tax. 4. The learned Jt. CDR has argued that the aforesaid Explanations should be given retrosp....