TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (11) TMI 601
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....earing no.A-T-FF-86 located on the second floor in Building Topaz having a super area of 1800 SFT. For the said purpose, the appellant entered into home buyer agreement dated 27.09.2011 with M/s.Emaar. The agreement contained a schedule of payment having multiple milestones for payment of consideration towards 'construction of complex and building services' provided by Emaar. In terms of the agreement, this payment was supposed to be made along with Service Tax during different periods. Emaar raised several demand notes upon completion of milestones to recover the payment towards purchase of flats. Emaar also charged service tax applicable thereon, which was paid by appellant. 3. The appellant filed refund claim on the ground that levy o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le 2A of Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006, retrospectively], it is evident that after the words "value of transfer of property in goods", the words "or in goods and land or undivided share of land, as the case may be", has been inserted retrospectively, with effect from 01.07.2010. The judgement of High Court on the basis of which you have filed refund claim is passed on 03.06.2016 i.e. prior to the enactment of Finance Act, 2017. Therefore, the service tax charged by the builder from you appears to be genuine and non-refundable." 4. Pursuant to issue of show cause notice, refund claim was rejected vide order-in-original observing that the judgement of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Suresh Kumar Bansal and Ot....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... entitled to refund with interest. Reference was also made by the appellant, subsequent to the judgement of Delhi High Court in the case of Suresh Kumar Bansal, that the Revenue had filed a review petition in the case of Ruchi Goyal - 2019 (29) GSTL 392 (Delhi), on the ground that the Ruling of Hon'ble High Court needs review, in view of the amendment in Rule 2 A of Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules. The Hon'ble High Court observed in para 23 of the judgement in the case of Suresh Kumar Bansal (Supra) that, it was noted that Section 65(105)(zzzza) deals with works contract and it is possible to argue that a composite contract for the development of complex and sale of units would fall within its scope. However, the High Court did n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....set aside." 10. I further notice that Section 65(105)(zzzh) of the Act reads as under:- "To any person, by any other person, in relation to construction of complex]. [Explanation: For the purpose of this sub-clause, construction of a complex, which is intended for sale, wholly or partly, by a builder or any person authorised by the builder before, during or after construction (except in cases for which no sum is received from or on behalf of the prospective buyer by the builder or a person authorised by the builder before the grant of completion certificate by the authority competent to issue such certificate under any law for the time being in force) shall be deemed to be service provider by the builder to the buyer;] ....