2017 (6) TMI 1180

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt Shri.M.P. Damle, Asst. Comm. (AR) for respondent JUDGEMENT Per: Raju 1. The appellant, M/s.Trinity Developers are engaged in he business of construction of residential complex. A demand for the period 01/04/2009 to 30/06/2012 was raised on 08/02/2013. The appellant had paid the entire demand raised along with interest for the period 16/11/2011 to 05/09/2012. The demand was confirmed....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....3/2016 to assert that the facts in this case are identical and benefit should be granted to them relying on the aforesaid decision. 3. Ld. AR relies on the impugned order. 4. We have gone through the rival submission. We find that in the instant case the facts of the decision in the case of SP Associates squarely apply as the period and the nature of service is almost identical in the case o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....opers (supra) and Maharashtra Chamber of Housing Industry (supra), the constitutional validity of the levy of construction of complex were challenged. It is also observed that even after 1.7.2010 the Maharashtra Chamber of Housing Industry filed writ petition in the Hon'ble Bombay High Court wherein a stay was granted on 23.10.2010 and finally judgment was passed by the Hon'ble High Court in Janua....