2023 (6) TMI 1157

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ent appeal, the issues that have been raised by the appellant are in connection with the first show cause notice dated September 28, 2011 that was issued for the period from April 01, 2006 to March 31, 2011. It has been stated by Shri Sandeep Mukherjee, learned chartered accountant appearing for the appellant that the matter relating to the second, third, fourth and fifth show cause notices are not involved in this appeal. 3. The dispute in the present appeal relates to the demand of service tax under "construction of residential complex" service as defined under section 65(105) (zzzh) of the Finance Act, 1994 [the Finance Act]. It transpires that the demand was made because an Explanation was added to the aforesaid section with effect fro....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ilder to the buyer; 21. After the introduction of this explanation, gross receipts of builders / developers from gross receipts of construction services became taxable. Moreover, the explanation added to the definition was held not to have retrospective effect and therefore, the taxability was on and from 01.07.2010." 7. However, even after noticing this fact, the Principal Commissioner in paragraph 24 holds that since the amount of service tax had been collected by the appellant from the customers, it was bound to pay it to the Department in terms of section 73(A) of the Finance Act. The Principal Commissioner also held that the appellant was liable to pay interest on the said amount in terms of section 73(B) of the Finance Act. The sai....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he fact is that the Noticee was having full knowledge of law and even after that they resorted to evasion with intent to evade payment of Service Tax and for this reason extended period of limitation is applicable." 9. Learned consultant appearing for the appellant submitted that for the period prior July 01, 201, the appellant was not liable to pay service tax, but since the appellant had collected service tax it had to pay the same in view of the provisions of section 73A of the Finance Act. 10. All that is, therefore, required to be examined in this connection is as to whether any interest was liable to be paid by the appellant in case there was a gap between the collection of the amount and deposit of the amount. The contention is tha....