2023 (10) TMI 117

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd construction of residential complex services during the period 10.09.2004 to 31.03.2008. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant was engaged in construction of commercial and civil structures. 2.1 A show-cause notice dated 17.04.2009 was issued to the appellant alleging contravention of the provisions of Section 67,68, 69 & 70 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Rules 4 (1), 6(1) & 7 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 on the part of the appellant in as much as they did not pay the service tax in respect of construction services and construction of residential complex services provided during the period 10.09.2004 to 31.03.2008 without obtaining service tax registration. 2.2 The appellant contested the show-cause notice statin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....re, they are not liable to pay any service tax as no demand has been raised against the appellant under the "works contract service". 4. On the other hand, the ld.A.R. for the Revenue, reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 5. Heard both the parties and considered the submissions. 6. We find that the appellant has provided the above services along with materials and on material part, they have paid the VAT to the State Government. The said fact is not in dispute at all. Therefore, the merit classification of the service rendered by the appellant is "works contract service" which came into service tax net w.e.f. 01.06.2007 as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Larsen & Tourbro Limited reported in 2015 (39) STR 913....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....graph. The High Court first correctly holds that in the case of composite works contracts, the service elements should be bifurcated, ascertained and then taxed. The finding that this has, in fact, been done by the Finance Act, 1994 Act is wholly incorrect as it ignores the second Gannon Dunkerley decision of this Court. Further, the finding that Section 67 of the Finance Act, which speaks of "gross amount charged", only speaks of the "gross amount charged" for service provided and not the gross amount of the works contract as a whole from which various deductions have to be made to arrive at the service element in the said contract. We find therefore that this judgment is wholly incorrect in its conclusion that the Finance Act, 1994 contai....