TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (2) TMI 307
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1.10.2006 to 31.05.2007 (b) Rs. 20,196/- under the category commercial or industrial construction service for the period 01.10.2006 to 31.05.2007 under that construction of commercial complex (c) Rs. 20,17,82,210/- for the period 01.06.2007 to 30.09.2011 on the activity of construction of residential complex, proposed to be classified as works contract service, with proposal to deny the benefit of composite scheme for payment of service tax (d) Rs. 21,029/- for the period 01.10.2010 to 30 01/09/2011 under GTA (e) Rs. 3,98,08,809/- under section 73A for the period 16.06.2005 to 30.09.2011. 3. Vide order in original dated 29.11.2013 the SCN was adjudicated and all the aforementioned demands were confirmed. Being aggrieved the Appellant had preferred appeals before this Tribunal. This Tribunal in appeal by the assessee vide final order dated 23.09.2014 held that so far the demand of Rs. 50,86, 324/- is concerned the same are set aside as the travel undertaken consistent view in other similar matters that prior to 01.07.2010 service tax cannot be levied in respect of transaction between a developer/service provider and the purchaser of flat. 4. With regard to the demand of Rs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ruction of complex service to works contract service by the Department. Further, he observed that there is no dispute on the value of gross amount as declared in the return and also confirmed by the recipient. The only dispute regarding classification stands settled by order of the Tribunal that the activities chargeable under construction of residential complex service. Thus, the difference of nearly Rs. 18 crores is erroneous and accordingly it was dropped. 7. So far the demand of Rs. 3,98,08,809/- under section 73A for the period 16.06.2005 to 30.09.2011 the Learned Commissioner took note of the details as follows: - Sl. No Period Demand propsed in SCN under Section 73A of the Finance Act, 1994 Rs. Amount actual deposited in the Govt. Exchequer Rs. Difference Col.No [3-4] Rs. 1 2 3 4 5 1 16.06.2005 To 30.09.2011 3,98,08,809/- 3,32,85,720/- 65,23,089/- Annexure-Z to SCN The reasons for the difference is as follows: Section 73A (i) The service tax was proposed on the values on which service tax is not liable (Since, the projects are below 12 units 25,73,664/- Was collected (ii) Service Tax was proposed on the values of Proje....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g of this Tribunal in LCS City Makers Vs CST, Chennai [2013 (30) STR 33 (Tri-Chennai)] upheld the liability of service tax of construction prior to 01.07.2010. Further, CBEC have clarified the scope of explanation inserted within Finance Act 2010 which provides - that unless the entire payment for the property is paid by the prospective buyer or on his behalf after the completion of construction (till the date of completion certificate issued by the Local Authorities, the activity of construction would be deemed to be taxable service provided by the Builder/Developer to the prospective buyer) 10.3 So far the dropping of demand of Rs. 20,17,82,210/- is concerned which was proposed under the Head - Works Contract Service for the period 01.06.2010 to 30.09.2011 reliance is placed on CBEC Circular No. 128/10/2010-ST dated 24.08.2010 which clarifies that with effect from 01.06.2007 with the introduction of Works Contract Service, certain services of complex nature like construction of complex have been brought under the umbrella of works contract with a specific condition that there should be a transfer of property in goods involved and such transfer of goods is liable to sales tax. Re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Learned Commissioner have rightly held that the said proposal of re-classification under the head Works Contract Service is hit by the provisions of Section 65A of the Act. There is no ground against this finding of law and hence this ground is also fit to be rejected. Further, it is observed in the impugned order that report was called for from the Range Superintendent, who vide its report/letter dated 08.02.2016 confirmed that there was no demand proposed or raised on the constructed area falling in the share of land owner and the demand was only confined to transactions between the assessee and prospective customer. Further, it was already held by the Tribunal in the earlier round, vide Final Order, that no tax can be demanded in respect of construction of residential complex service prior to 01.07.2010. Further, the issue of classification also stood settled by the Order of the Tribunal in the first round. Further, admittedly, the demand of Rs. 20,17,82,210/- had been proposed solely due to of change of proposed classification. Hence, the demand has been rightly dropped in the impugned order. It is further urged that the Board vide Circular dated 24.08.2010 have clarified th....