TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (12) TMI 1922
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rks Contract (Composition Scheme for Payment of Service Tax), Rules, 2007 should not be drawn. The show cause notice recites that the petitioner was availing a self assessment procedure and had not disclosed that it was providing only completion and finishing services in relation to building or civil structures and that it had received materials such as glass and aluminium free of cost from their clients and that value of such materials was not added and disclosed to the service tax authorities while reporting taxable turn over. The petitioner also impugns a Circular dated 4.1.2008, inasmuch as it clarifies that goods free of cost would also be leviable to service tax. 3. The construction service per se was included as a taxable service ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ons were disposed of on 9.1.2014 inter alia in terms of the following directions: - "16. The grievance of the petitioner with regard to assessment and computation cannot be equated with the challenge to the constitutional validity of the impugned provisions. It is open to the petitioner to raise issues of computation before the appropriate Adjudicating Authority/Appellate Authority and demonstrate the extent to which service tax can be imposed on the services that are provided by them. To be clear, it is open to the petitioner to demonstrate the extent of the service element included in the composite contract and to pay service tax only on that component. 17. The Division Bench in G.D. Builders (supra) has already interpre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ces for charging service tax has to be in consonance with Section 66 which levies a tax only on the taxable service and nothing else. There is thus in built mechanism to ensure that only the taxable service shall be evaluated under the provisions of 67. Clause (i) of sub-section (1) of Section 67 provides that the value of the taxable service shall be the gross amount charged by the service provider "for such service". Reading Section 66 and Section 67 (1) (i) together and harmoniously, it seems clear to us that in the valuation of the taxable service, nothing more and nothing less than the consideration paid as quid pro quo for the service can be brought to charge. Sub-section (4) of Section 67 which enables the determination of the value ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to be laid before each House of Parliament would not confer validity on a rule if it is made not in conformity with Section 40 of the Act." Thus Section 94 (4) does not add any greater force to the Rules than what they ordinarily have as species of subordinate legislation." 8. Likewise in Bhayana Builders, the Larger Bench of the CESTAT after noticing the order in Intercontinental (supra) concluded as follows: - "(vi) In Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India [2013 (29 STR) DEL], the Delhi High Court was essentially considering a challenge of the validity of Rule 5 of the Service Tax (determination of value) Rules, 2006. This provision was challenged to the extent it includes reimburs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e clear Legislative text, the unambiguous provisions of sections 66 and 67 of the Act and in the light of the judgment in Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt Ltd. (supra), the conclusion is compelling and inviolable that the value "free supplies" by a construction services recipient, for incorporation in the constructions would not constitute a non-monetary consideration to the service provider nor form part of the gross amount charged for the services provided. Whether the legislature may enact that the value of "free supplies" should be included in the value of the service provided for levy of tax; and within its legislative competence, is an aspect that is speculative for the nonce and outside the purview of either the subst....