Just a moment...

Top
Help
Upgrade to AI Search

We've upgraded AI Search on TaxTMI with two powerful modes:

1. Basic
Quick overview summary answering your query with referencesCategory-wise results to explore all relevant documents on TaxTMI

2. Advanced
• Includes everything in Basic
Detailed report covering:
     -   Overview Summary
     -   Governing Provisions [Acts, Notifications, Circulars]
     -   Relevant Case Laws
     -   Tariff / Classification / HSN
     -   Expert views from TaxTMI
     -   Practical Guidance with immediate steps and dispute strategy

• Also highlights how each document is relevant to your query, helping you quickly understand key insights without reading the full text.Help Us Improve - by giving the rating with each AI Result:

Explore AI Search

Powered by Weblekha - Building Scalable Websites

×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2019 (1) TMI 500

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....demanding a Service Tax of Rs. 56,22,788/- for the period from June 2005 to March 2006 and seeking to impose penalties thereof. The Commissioner of Customs vide Order No. 12/2009 dated 23.01.2009 has confirmed the demand of Rs. 36,39,685/- along with interest and penalty of Rs. 5000/- under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 and has also appropriated Rs. 21,00,000/- paid by the appellants. Hence, this appeal. 2. The Ld. Counsel for the appellants contended that Circular No. 151/2/2012 dated 10.02.2012 and 108/2/2009-ST dated 28.01.2009, developer/builder was not liable to Service Tax on the construction and sale of the apartments. He submitted that various decisions are also to the extent that developer/builder was not liable to pay Servi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ri. Ahmd.). (xi) Classic Promoters and Developers Vs. CCE, 2009 (15) STR 77 (Tri. Bang.) (xii) Mohtisham Complexes (P) Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C.Ex., Manglore 2011 (21) STR 551 (Tri. Bang.) (xiii) Commr. Vs. L&T, 2015 (39) STR 913 (SC). (xiv) Magus Construction Pvt. Ltd. and Anr Vs, UOI and Others, 2008 (11) STR 225 (Gauhati). (xv) Assotech Realty Vs. State of UP, 2007 (7) STR 129 (All.) 2.1 He also submitted that the SCNs barred by limitation and as there was no deliberate intention to evade payment of duty and as subsequently it was settled by the Central Govt. and Hon‟ble Supreme Court that composite works contracts were not taxable before 01.06.2007, no penalty can be imposed. Benefit of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 ....