TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 829
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2. The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 11.10.2017 passed by the Commissioner (A) whereby the Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeal of the appellant. 3. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant is the Managing Director of M/s. Navani Engineers & Consultants, Trichur which is a partnership firm engaged in the activity of construction of residential complex in their own land. Verification of ST-3 returns for the period 2007-2011 showed the declared value of services provided during 07/2007 to 6/2010 as 'Nil'. A copy of the agreement executed by the appellant with the purchaser showed that the purchaser agreed to make payment of consideration periodically in installments before the apartment....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as held that the assessee is liable to pay service tax in respect of construction of residential complex service from 1.7.2010 when the Explanation was inserted under Section 65(105)(zzzh) of the Finance Act, 1994. 6. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order. 7. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, we find that in the present case, the appellants were constructing residential flats on their own land as the building permit was granted to the appellant. Further, the completion and occupancy certificate were also given to the appellant and the initial building tax was also paid by the appellant. Further, we find that this issue is no more res integra and has been se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nation inserted by the Finance Act, 2010 brings within the fold of taxable service a construction service provided by the builder to a buyer where there is an intended sale between the parties whether before, during or after construction; that the 'Explanation' was specifically legislated upon to expand the concept of taxable service; that prior to the explanation, the view taken was that since a mere agreement to sell does not create any interest in the property and the title to the property continues to remain with the builder, no service was provided to the buyer; that the service, if any, would be in the nature of a service rendered by the builder to himself; that the explanation expands the scope of the taxable service, provided by bui....