TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 67
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing prospective buyers, they entered into two separate agreements with them; one was agreement of sale of undivided share of land ('UDS' for short) and two, for construction of flat for each of the buyers. Of course, it is an admitted fact that both the agreements were executed simultaneously and that only after construction of flat, sale deeds for UDS alone were registered with the registering authority and the possession of the constructed flats was handed over thereafter. It is also an admitted fact that each of such sale deeds executed did not include the value of the constructed flat. The dispute relates to the period from June 2005 to March 2009 and April 2009 to June 2010. 2.1 The Revenue through Show Cause Notice No. 122/2010 dated....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eals have been filed by the assessee. 3. Today when the matter came up for hearing, Ld. Advocate Shri. Prasanna Krishnan V. appearing for the assessee primarily contended that the appellant being a promoter is not rendering any of the services and that therefore there is no service tax liability. In this regard, he relied on the Order of this Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Golden Ventures Vs. Commissioner of C.E. & S.T., Chennai in Final Order No. 41938/2018 dated 02.07.2018 and also relied on the subsequent Order of CESTAT, Chennai in the case of M/s. Real Value Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of G.S.T & Central Excise, Chennai in Final Order Nos. 42436-42438/2018 dated 18.09.2018. 4. Per contra, Ld. AR Shri. K. Veerabha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s amount charged for the construction service provided to the builder/promoter/developer under construction of complex service; that if no person is engaged by the builder/promoter/developer for construction work, who undertakes construction work on his own without engaging the services of any other person than in such cases, in the absence of service provider and service-recipient relationship, the question of providing taxable service to any person by any other person would not arise, etc. The Hon'ble Bench after analysing the scope of Section 65 (105) (zzzh), has held as under: "...Thus, by this explanation, the scope of the Clause (zzzh) of Section 65 (105) has been expanded and this amendment by adding an explanation has been held b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pective." 9. In view of the above, though in view of the Apex Court judgment in the case of M/s. Larsen & Toubro Limited and Others v. State of Karnataka & Others (supra), the agreements entered into by a builder/promoter/developer with prospective buyers for construction of residential units in a residential complex against payments being made by the prospective buyers in instalments during construction and in terms of which the possession of the residential unit, is to be handed over to the customers on completion of the residential complex and full payment having been made, are to be treated as works contracts, it has to be held that during the period of dispute, there was no intention of the Government to tax the activity in terms of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing for the assessee has mainly contended that by virtue of notifications and various case law the demand of service tax has to be set aside. As noted by us in the above paragraphs, the issue here is similar to the one decided by the Principal bench as also this very Bench. Thus going by the ratio decidendi, we have to hold that the appellant who is a builder/promoter is not liable for service tax upon his selling UDS. 17. We, therefore, hold that there will be no service tax liability on the appellant. 18. The appeal is therefore allowed, to the extent above, with consequential reliefs, if any." We also note that the above view has also been supported by a subsequent Order of this very Bench in the case of M/s. Real Value Promoters P....