TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 753
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rao, Authorized Representatives ORDER PER: ANGAD PRASAD: M/s Aruna Constructions, Visakhapatnam (hereinafter referred to as appellant) has filed this appeal against the Order-in-Original No.VIZ-STX001-COM-003-13 dated 30.01.2013 (impugned order) whereby, Service Tax demand along with interest and equal penalty has been confirmed. 2. The fact in brief is that the appellant is engaged in construction of residential complexes. Investigation was initiated by the Department alleging that the activities under taken by the appellant were liable to Service Tax for period 2007-08 to December, 2011. During investigation, the appellant deposited an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- proposed to be appropriated. 3. The Show Cause Notice classified....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d filing returns claiming exemption to the said service in the returns. The Department issued Show Cause Notice proposing change of classification of service under works contract since construction of complex falls under the definition of the 'works contract', without giving any abatement. 7. Vide the impugned order, the Learned Adjudicating Authority confirmed demand on both the consideration received from the clients and on service provided to land owner by taking the rate at which the appellant sold flats to his clients. On the issue of demand for the extended period of the Commissioner held that same is applicable on account of misclassification of the service and also not paying full tax even under CRCS. 8. Being aggrieved as abo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppellant submits that there was no suppression of facts since all transactions were duly recorded. 14. Learned Authorized Representative (AR) for the Department reiterates the findings of impugned order and submits that the appellant failed to exercise the option for composition scheme within prescribed time. 15. Heard Learned Counsel for the appellant C.S. Srinivasa Rao and Learned Representatives of the Department Shri V.R. Pavan Kumar and Shri B. Sangameshwar Rao and perused the records with their submissions. 16. In the present case, following issues arise for determination: (i) Whether construction of residential complex undertaken by the appellant prior to 01.07.2010 is liable to Service Tax. ii) Whether ben....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mputed liability on gross value without allowing deduction of materials. Since, the activity involves transfer of property in goods, valuation requires reconsideration. 20. The issue regarding taxability of construction of residential complex prior to insertion of explanation to Section 65(105)(zzzh) stands settled by Tribunal decisions including Aditya Homes (P) Ltd., and Pragati Edifice Pvt Ltd., supra, wherein, it has been held that such activity under taken for personal was not taxable prior to 01.07.2010. 21. CBEC Circular No.108/2/2009-ST also clarifies the legal position. Hence, demand for period prior to 01.07.2010 is not sustainable. 22. On the issue of limitation also, we find that there was divergent views prevailing dur....