AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (3) TMI 349
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alized registration on 12.09.2003. On verification of the Returns filed by the Appellant and pursuant to search conducted in their premises on 29.07.2011, Show Cause Notice (SCN) dt.22.10.2011 was issued proposing to demand service tax as follows: i) Rs.2,12,03,687/- under the head 'Construction of Complex service' for the period 01.04.2006 to 31.05.2007 as per Annexure-IV to SCN. ii) Rs.8,16,39,119/- for the same service of CRCS with proposal to tax the same under Works Contract service (WCS) during the period 01.06.2007 to 31.03.2011 as per Annexure-IV to SCN with proposal to adjust the amount of tax already deposited i.e., Rs.1,69,70,199/- for the same period. iii) Proposal to appropriate the amount of Rs.80,00....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....2007 to 31.03.2011 8,16,39,119 3. Proposed appropriation against (1) & (2) above 2,49,70,199 4. Demand on Renting of Immovable Property service for the period 01.06.2007 to 31.03.2011 4,69,180 5. Proposed appropriation against (4) Above 3,21,680 6. Demand on Management, Maintenance or Repair service during the period 01.04.2006 to 31.03.2011 33,333 7. Demand on Transport of goods by Road service during the period 01.04.2006 to 31.03.2011 3,31,699 Total 10,36,77,018 2,52,91,879 4. Heard the parties and perused the records. 5. So far the first demand is concerned, we find that construction of complex service is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rity. In other words, a sale, post construction (after grant of completion certificate) will not come within the scope of service tax. Accordingly, we set aside the demand of Rs.2,12,03,687/-. 7. So far the demand of Rs.8,16,39,119/- is concerned, in view of the aforementioned observations, we hold that no service tax is payable for the period up to 30.06.2010. So far the demand for the period 01.07.2010 to 31.03.2011 is concerned, the Appellant states that they dispute the reclassification of the same service under the head WCS. However, as per the Notification No. 29/2010 amending the earlier Notification No. 01/2006-ST, keeping in view the value of land also involved, which is being transferred, 75% abatement of the gross value has be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uring this period (after 01.07.2010). These amounts are required to be deducted from the gross value for computation of the correct gross value. 12. In respect of the project - Prajay Megapolis, it is submitted that the said project was done by a group company, viz., M/s Prajay Properties Pvt Ltd (PPPL) of the Appellant company. In the initial stage of the project some customers has issued cheques in favour of the Appellant totalling Rs.45,42,320/- which was transferred as such to M/s PPPL. Whereas, Revenue has erroneously considered the amount of Rs.23,27,53,000/- in respect of the said project received by M/s PPPL as received by the Appellant company, which is wholly erroneous. Admittedly, the said project has been executed by M/s PPPL....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t, includes service tax amount also. Evidently, during the relevant period, levy of service tax under this head was highly disputed and had been declared ultra vires by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Home Solutions Retail (India) Ltd and Others. Thereafter, the said tax was again levied with retrospective effect by re-enacting the provisions. When the amount actually received is considered as gross amount and no other amount is admittedly collected towards service tax, then the gross amount becomes cum-tax value as provided under Sec 67(2) of the Finance Act, 1994. The Adjudicating Authority has erred in not giving cum-tax benefit. If the gross amount is taken as cum-tax value and service tax is calculated on this basis, the am....