2013 (12) TMI 1583

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uding penalty equivalent to the gross tax liability assessed on the several taxable services allegedly provided, under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 (the Act). The assessed liability comprises components of service tax liability for allegedly having provided (a) Renting of Immovable Property - ₹ 692,47,57,800/- (b) Construction of Residential Complexes - ₹ 4,27,67,609/- (c) Construction of Commercial Complexes - ₹ 572,70,34,553/-; (d) Business Support services - ₹ 22,94,36,963; (e) Maintenance and Repair services - ₹ 2,18,80,006/-; (f) Manpower recruitment and supply service - ₹ 55,42,009/-; and (g) Works Contract service ₹ 2,464/-. 2. The petitioner is an instrumentality of the State cr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al complex services, taxable under relevant provisions of the Act. Similar is the quality of analysis in respect of items (d) to (g). 3. Insofar as renting of immovable property, a service covered by item (a) (supra), the petitioner asserted before the adjudicating authority and reiterates before us, several defences. The generic defence is that it is an instrumentality of State and is therefore "the State". On this primary assertion, it is contended that qua the provisions of Article 289 of the Constitution, the property of the petitioner is immune to federal taxation since it is an instrumentality of the State of Karnataka. Another facet of this contention is that in the absence of a specific provision in the Act mandating liability....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tage of the proceedings. Another contention is that the entirety of the consideration received on the leases of the petitioner's immovable property would not amount to consideration received for lease/renting of immovable property, since a part of the consideration is attributable to advances received for later sale transactions in favour of the current lessee(s). At this stage of the proceedings and on a primary analysis of the material on record, it does not appear possible to segregate what quantum of the gross consideration received, in respect of each of the lessee(s) should be attributed to lease consideration and what amount treated as advances for eventual sale. In our considered prima facie view, the apportionment (of the considera....