TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (3) TMI 635
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cy' ^GTA services for the period 1 October, 2007 to 31 March, 2012, a demand of Rs. 12,356/- for the period 1 April, 2012 to 31 March, 2013, and a demand of Rs. 735/- for the period 1 April, 2013 to 31 March, 2014. Interest and penalty have also been imposed upon the appellant. 2. The appellant, a partnership firm, is engaged in civil construction work for some of the Government Departments. During the period from 1 October, 2007 to 31 March, 2014, the appellant undertook the following works for the Departments:- Sl.No. Department Nature of Work 1. Bhopal Development Authority Construction of Inter State Bus Terminus platform including building works, water supply, sanitary work and internal electrification. 2. Capital Project Authority Construction of Office Building for the Commercial Tax Department, GoMP. 3. Bhopal Development Authority Construction of Individual Duplex under Vedavati Avasia Yojana, Amravat Khurd. 4. Bhopal Development Authority Construction of Individual Duplex under Vedavati Avasiya Yojana, Amravat Khurd. 3. Three show cause notices were issued to the appellant. The first show cause notice dated 18 April, 2013....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed 3 December, 2004 and, therefore, no tax liability could be fastened upon the appellant; (v) The Principal Commissioner could not have levied penalty and interest upon the appellant; and (vi) The extended period of limitation could not have been invoked in the fact and circumstances of the present case. 7. The learned Authorized Representative of the Department has, however, supported the impugned order and has submitted that no interference is called for in this appeal. It is his submission that the appellant failed to produce any documents before the Principal Commissioner to substantiate the defence taken by the appellant in regard to GTA service and, therefore, it is not open to the appellant to now substantiate the submission by placing reliance upon documents which had not been filed before the Principal Commissioner in reply to the show cause notice. 8. The submissions advanced by the learned Chartered Accountant for the appellant and the learned Authorised Representative of the Department have been considered. 9. The first dispute in the present appeal relates to the work undertaken by the appellant for the Bhopal Development Authority for const....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing building works, water supply, sanitary work and internal electrification works and not for any other construction. This is clear from the work order. The Tribunal in Amar Construction Company in regard to the construction of the same Inter State Bus Terminal has observed as follows:- "3. The point for consideration is the service tax liability of the respondent for construction activity of commercial portion of ISBT. We find that the Revenue is contesting the finding of the lower authorities on the ground that the exclusion available under "Commercial or Industrial Construction Service" for transport terminals cannot be applied to the commercial portion of the ISBT constructed by the respondent. We find that in terms of Section 65(25b) of Finance Act, 1994, the taxable service does not include such service provided in respect of the roads, airports, railways, transport terminals, bridges, tunnels and dams. Admittedly, ISBT is transport terminal which is clearly excluded from the definition of "Commercial or Industrial Construction Service" for service tax purposes. When the construction of ISBT is not a taxable service, there cannot be any bifurcation of that activity ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se as residence by another person on rent or without consideration; (b) "residential unit" means a single house or a single apartment intended for use as a place of residence;" 20. The definition of a "residential complex" leaves no manner of doubt that it would be a complex comprising of a building or buildings, having more than twelve residential units. In other words a complex may have a building having more than twelve residential units or a complex may have more than one building each having more than twelve residential units. Independent buildings having twelve or less than twelve residential units would not be covered by the definition of "residential complex". In the present case, the appellant had constructed independent buildings having one residential unit only. Thus, even if the appellant had constructed more than 12 independent buildings, the nature of activity would not be "construction of complex" and, therefore, the service tax could be levied. 21. In this connection reliance can be placed on a Division Bench judgment of the Principal Bench of the Tribunal in Macro Marvel Projects Ltd. v/s Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai 2008 (12) STR 603 (Tri.-C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....activity under the entry 65(105)(zzzh) for taxing 'construction of complex' as defined under Section 65(91a) of Finance Act, 1994. The submission of the appellant is that the entry covers only such building where each of the building has got more than 12 residential units. They have built 15 independent houses and not a complex and hence their activity was not taxable under the entry 65(105)(zzzh) which adopts definition in Section 65(91a). He relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Macro Marvel Projects Ltd. v. CST, Chennai - 2008 (12) S.T.R. 603 (Tri.-Chennai). 2. The Authorised Representative appearing for the Revenue submits that the explanation under Section 65(91a) of Finance Act, 1994 gives definition of "residential unit" to mean "a house or single apartment intended for use as a place of residence". Even if the residential units are separate, it will be covered by the definition, according to him. 3. The A.R. further submits that the decision in the case of Macro Marvel Projects Ltd. was with reference to the entry for works contract under Sections 65(105)(zzzza) of Finance Act, 1994 whereas the present case is in respect of construction o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... collected as per the definition of Residential Complex defined under Section 65 (91a). The work doen by them is that of construction of buildings that do not have more than 12 residential units. Each building constructed by them contains only 1 residential unit. Under such circumstances, this construction is not construction of a "Residential Complex" since the condition given in para (i) is nto fulfilled. Again in this regard the Noticee relied on the decision of Macro Marvel reported in 2008 (12) S.T.R. 603 (Tri. - Chennai), further affirmed by the Honourable Apex Court in 2012 (25) S.T.R. J154 (S.C.) and A.S. Sikarwar reported in 2012 (28) S.T.R. 479 (Tri. - Del.). 35. Here it is important to note that the case laws quoted by the Noticees are not applicable in their case in as much as they have done construction of houses development work in complex having more than 12 residential units, common community hall, common parking area, and common part which clearly satisfy the definition of residential complex in Section 65 (91a) of Finance Act, 1994 and service of construction of complex defined in Sections 65 (30a) and 65 (105)(zzzh) ibid - Impugned service clearly covere....