2013 (10) TMI 816

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Mathew John; 1. The applicant is engaged in the business of construction of residential complexes. They first sell undivided portion of the land to the prospective buyer of flats and thereafter construct flats for such prospective buyers. According to Revenue, during the period 16-06-05 to 31-03-09, they had executed two projects (i) Le Orchard and (ii) Majestic Orchard and they had not paid a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....propriate the amount already paid because he has recorded that he is not able to find out as to which period this payment relates to. But, we note that the fact of payment of such amount is not disputed. 3. Since the advocate makes a clear submission that this payment is towards liability for Majestic Orchard, it is only appropriate that it is so accepted at this stage for the purpose of allowi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....red by entry for Works Contract which came into force only from 1.6.2007 and so on. 5. However, his main argument is that this demand is barred by limitation because SCN is dated 29-07-10. Therefore, he prays that no further pre-deposit may be called for from him for admission of the appeal. 6. Opposing the prayer, Ld. AR for Revenue submits that the question whether payment was towards serv....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ding projects being undertaken by them and this information was unearthed only upon investigation and consequently, the contention of learned counsel on time-bar is not sustainable. 7. We have considered the arguments on both sides. Prima facie, it appears that applicant has discharged full liability in respect of the Majestic Orchard Project. Therefore, we take a slightly lenient view in the m....