TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (9) TMI 639
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e petitioner, which is a Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, engaged in the construction service in respect of residential and commercial or industrial buildings and civil structures, in the capacity of "Promoter, Builder or Developer". On the reasonable belief that the activities carried out by the petitioner Company does not attract levy of Service tax, the petitioner had not obtained the Service Tax Registration prior to February 2011 and not collected service tax from any of their customers during the period 2007-2011, as they have not raised any invoice and only given them the details of receipts to them. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that when the petitioner planned to under....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e petitioner is before this Court. 4.1 The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the respondent, in the impugned order, while referring to the Board Circular dated 29.01.2009 has stated that the Circular was issued under a different service viz., "Construction of residential complex service" and hence not applicable to the present case. He would further submit that the respondent has further held that the insertion of Explanation on 01.07.2010 had retrospective effect as the same cannot be termed as an amendment. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the conclusion so arrived at by the respondent is contrary to the settled position of law as per the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Courts....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pplicable to Service Tax matters, the petitioner will be compelled to file an appeal only after depositing 7½% of the amount of tax demanded, even though the substitution of Section 35 F of the Act can be applied prospectively, i.e., for the cases where the lis arises after 6.8.2014. 4.5 Besides, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the question of applicability of substituted Section 35-F of the Finance Act, to the orders passed after 06.08.2014 or to the appeals filed on or after 06.08.2014, is still pending consideration before the Division Bench of this Court, irrespective of the final orders by Kerala High Court reported in 2015 TIOL 895 Kerala and the interim orders of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in ....