2023 (5) TMI 82

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rabh Dixit, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Prakash Kumar Singh , Superintendent ( AR ) for the Respondent ORDER RAMESH NAIR The brief facts of the case are that the appellant received Rs.4,09,32,406/- from M/s. D S Properties during 2005-06 to 2008-09 for providing construction service in respect of residential complex namely 'Vicenza Repreat' having more than 12 units i.e. Constructi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... notice was confirmed by the adjudicating authority vide Order-In-Original dated 31.03.2011. Being aggrieved by the said order-in-original, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who also vide Order-In-Appeal No. PJ/610/VDR-II/2012-13 dated 25.03.2013 upheld the Order-In-Original and rejected the appeal therefore, the present appeal filed by the appellant. 02. Shri Saurabh....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e of works contract. He submits that it is not required in the present case that the appellant should opt for the Works Contract Service for the reason that the appellant right from the beginning maintained that they are providing the Works Contract Service. The option is required only in a case where the assessee is covered under the individual service of construction prior to introduction of Wor....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ong with material and they have paid the VAT to the State Government. In this regard, they have also produced the VAT returns. In this fact, there is no doubt that the service provided by the appellant is of Works Contract. It is also the fact that the appellant even before 01.06.2007 right from the beginning providing the service of Works Contract i.e. Construction of Residential Complex along wi....