TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (4) TMI 349
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he appellant and Smt. Sridevi Taritla, Learned Additional Commissioner, appeared for the Revenue. 3.1 The appellant before us is engaged in the business of construction of residential complex, is a developer and the appellant enters into contract with prospective buyers for sale of undivided share in the land, together with the construction of residential unit for such buyers. Hence, such agreements / contracts entered into by the appellant are composite contracts. 3.2 The period of dispute is from December 2009 to September 2010. In paragraph 1.4 of the impugned order, it has been recorded that it appeared to the Revenue that the activities undertaken by the assessee were taxable under works contract service and that the assessee had....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....65(105)(zzzz). It was also pleaded that there was no liability on the value realized on the sale of residential flats; that they had entered into agreement with customers for the sale of undivided portion of land and for the construction of flat; that they had correctly remitted the Service Tax from July 2010 under the head CRCS and therefore, the demand under WCS was not tenable. In this regard, they relied on C.B.E.C. Circulars / Notifications / Clarifications apart from rulings of various judicial fora. 6. The above reply filed by the appellant was considered in adjudication by the Commissioner who, after considering the above reply, Circulars/Notifications of the C.B.E.C. and judicial precedents, has, however, confirmed the proposals....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the findings in the impugned order. She would also refer to the Order of this Bench in the case of M/s. Real Value Promoters Pvt. Ltd. (supra) to buttress her arguments that what has been held by this Bench is that when the contract was composite in nature, the Service Tax would be attracted for the period post 01.06.2007. 9. Having heard the rival contentions, we find that the only issue to be decided is: whether the authority below is justified in demanding Service Tax from the appellant under 'works contract' service for the period from December 2009 to September 2010? 10. We find that the Order of the co-ordinate Hyderabad Bench of the CESTAT in the case of M/s. Pragati Edifice Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is a more recent one, which has con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gal position that whether the service is rendered as service simpliciter or as a works contract, no Service Tax can be levied on construction of residential complex prior to 1-7-2010. Learned Counsel would submit that for the period post 1-7-2010, they have been discharging Service Tax appropriately. This is a fact which can be verified to ascertain the full tax liability for the period post 1-7-2010 or otherwise." (Emphasis supplied by us, in bold, for clarity) 11.1 We have gone through the orders of the various CESTAT Benches which have been considered by the Hyderabad Bench of the CESTAT in M/s. Pragati Edifice Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the relevant observation of which has been extracted hereinabove. We find that it has been categoricall....