TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 1821
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t Brook', 'Olive Yard' and 'Harward Heights' and had paid tax under the category of 'Construction of Residential Complex Service'. Based on the Board's Circular No. 108/02/2009-ST dated 29.01.2009, the appellant filed a refund claim stating that they are not liable to pay service tax as clarified by the above circular. The original authority after verification of the necessary documents, sanctioned the refund amount of Rs.12,21,799/- vide Order-in-Original No.2/2009-ST(Refund) dated 19.05.2009. This order was taken up for review and the Commissioner vide Order-in-Revision No. 3/2011/ST dated 23.02.2011 set aside the above Order-in-Original sanctioning the refund on the ground that the appellant is not eligible for exemption as per the Board....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dential Complex' service prior to 01.07.2010 in view of the Explanation and the Board's Circulars referred above. The issue is no longer res integra in as much as the Principal Bench in the case of Krishna Homes vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhopal (supra) has observed as follows: "8. Coming first to the question as to whether the activity of M/s. Krishna Homes and M/s. Raj Homes was taxable during the period of dispute or not, by Finance Act, 2005, Clause (zzzh) was introduced into Section 65(105) of Finance Act, 1994, so as to bring within the purview of the term 'taxable service', a service provided or to be provided to any person by any other person "in relation to construction of complex". The expression "construction of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a). There is also no dispute that both the assessees had engaged contractors for construction of the complexes. The dispute in these appeals is as to whether the assessees would be liable to pay Service Tax on the amounts charged by them from their customers with whom they had entered into agreements for construction of the residential units and whose possession was to be handed over on completion of the construction and full payment having been made by the customers. It is seen that on this point, the Tax Research Unit of the Central Board of Excise & Customs, which is a wing of the C.B.E. & C. dealing with legislation work, had vide Circular No. 332/35/2006-TRU, dated 1-8-2006 clarified that in case where a builder, promoter, developer bu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... got a residential complex constructed for his customers with whom he had individually entered into agreements, in terms of which the prospective customers were required to make payments for the residential units to be constructed in instalments and the possession of the residential units was to be given to the customers on completion of the complex and full payment having been made, the builder/promoter/developer was to be treated as a deemed provider of construction of residential complex service to his customers. Thus, by this explanation, the scope of the Clause (zzzh) of Section 65(105) has been expanded and this amendment by adding an explanation has been held by this Tribunal in the case of CCE, Chandigarh v. U.B. Construction (P) Lt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the Apex Court judgment in the case of M/s. Larsen & Toubro Limited and Others v. State of Karnataka & Others (supra), the agreements entered into by a builder/promoter/developer with prospective buyers for construction of residential units in a residential complex against payments being made by the prospective buyers in instalments during construction and in terms of which the possession of the residential unit, is to be handed over to the customers on completion of the residential complex and full payment having been made, are to be treated as works contracts, it has to be held that during the period of dispute, there was no intention of the Government to tax the activity in terms of such contracts a builder/developer with prospective c....