TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 1638
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by the Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax and Central Excise, Appeal-I Commissionerate, Kolkata. 2. The facts of the case are that M/s. Smifs Capital Markets Ltd., Kolkata, the appellant herein, are engaged in providing the services of construction of residential complex, banking and other financial services and registered with the Service tax Department for the said services. 2.1. The Department conducted an audit on the accounts of the appellant and on scrutiny of the Profit & Loss A/c, Ledger Accounts etc maintained by the appellant during the period from 2015-15 to 2017-18 (up to June, 2017), it was observed that during the Financial Year 2016-17, the appellant had shown income of Rs.2,69,49,000/- as advance received ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....completion of basement to 4th Floor and from 6th Floor to 15th Floor of the building. It is claimed by them that the above certificate is termed as partial completion certificate (PCC). It is submitted that the above partial completion certificate is not for full building, but for the building except 5th Floor and from 16th to 18th Floors; it is also mentioned in the certificate that full completion certificate after full completion of the work must be obtained; accordingly, after completion of construction of remaining floors, the appellant applied for completion certificate (CC) under Rule 28 on 13.07.2016 which was granted to them on 20.08.2016. 3.1. The appellant contends that the ld. adjudicating authority has failed to understand t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....present appeal is related to Service Tax liability on the consideration received for the sale of flat No. 15C. As per the records maintained by the appellant, they have shown an income of Rs.2,69,49,000/- towards sale of residential flat 15C. The appellant claims that they have not paid Service Tax on this consideration, as they were of the view that the said sale was effected after issue of the partial completion certificate dated 04.06.2016. However, the Department is of the view that the appellant has applied for completion certificate under Rule 28 on 13.07.2016 which was granted to them only on 20.08.2016 and hence the appellant is liable to pay service tax for the said consideration received prior to 13.07.2016. Thus, I observe that t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te dated 20.08.2016 was obtained in terms of Rule 28 of the KMC Rules. For obtaining such certificates under both the Rules, a notice of completion was given to the authority under rule 27 of the KMC Rules, duly certified by the Architect, who is a competent authority under specific circumstances, in terms of the provisions of Clause (b) of Section 66E. 6.4..I further observe that the appellant applied for Partial completion Certificate, when certain finishing works remain pending, but the construction has been completed otherwise in all material respects and the project is in a habitable condition. As per Rule 29 of KMC Rules, the developer is entitled to apply for a Partial Completion Certificate, enabling the handover of the property ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the specified portion, which is fit for allowing occupation. I find that the law treats both partial completion certificate and the completion certificate at par, especially in respect of the specified portion mentioned in the partial completion certificate. Thus, I hold the partial completion certificate issued on 04.06.2016, in the present case can be considered as completion certificate in respect of that specified portion for which that PCC was issued. Thus, I hold that the appellant is eligible for the exemption from payment service tax as per Clause(b) of Section 66E of the Finance Act, 1994 in respect of the sale consideration received after issue of PCC on 04.06.2016. 6.8. In the present case, I find that booking of Flat No. 15C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stence of wilful misstatement or suppression of facts with intent to evade duty. In the instant case, the demand has been raised purely based on information already available in the statutory returns furnished by the appellant. No fresh discovery of facts or concealment on the part of the appellant has been demonstrated. Therefore, I hold that the essential ingredients for invoking the extended period are absent in this case. In this regard, reliance is placed on the following judgments of the Hon'ble High Courts: - (i) Commissioner of C.Ex Vs. Hindustan Cable Limited [2022 (382) ELT 188 (Cal.)] (ii) Smt. Teena Gupta vs Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax Indore (M.P.) [2024 (12) TMI 352 - CESTAT New Delhi] 7.2. ....