TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 694
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urugram, whereby the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeal of the Appellant by upholding the Order-in- Original ('OIO'). 2. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the Appellant, M/s Hi-Tech Construction, were engaged in providing 'Works Contract Services'. During the period 2009-10 to June 2012, the Appellant entered into the contract with Haryana Housing Board for construction of low cost flats for BPL families. As per the Appellant, they were not liable to pay service tax on the said services during the relevant time, but because of various letters issued by the Department, they deposited Rs.59,11,142/- and thereafter, filed refund claim of the said deposit after the judgment of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....submits that the said low cost flats constructed by the Appellant were not sold to the BPL families but allotted to the BPL families on monthly lease and it is a settled law that if a complex is constructed which is meant for personal use, no service tax is payable. He also submits that residential units on rent/lease are included in the scope of 'personal use' defined under Section 65(91a) of the Finance Act and therefore, no service tax was payable on said services. 4.3 The learned Counsel also refers to the definition of "Residential Complex" and submits that for a service to fall under the definition of Residential Complex, there has to be any one or more facility such as park, lift, parking space, community hall, common water supply....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(Tri. Ahmd.)] • Bharat Bhushan Gupta & Company vs. State of Haryana [2016 (44) STR 195 (P&H)] • B.L. Mehta Construction P Ltd vs. CCE & ST, Chandigarh [2018 (8) GSTL 92 (Tri. Chan.)] • Rajeshwar Builders vs. CCE, Ghaziabad [2019 (20) GSTL 79 (Tri. All.)] • Raj Construction vs. CCE & CGST, Jaipur [2022 (66) GSTL 450 (Tri. Del.)] 5. On the other hand, the learned Authorized Representative for the Revenue justifies the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) has given adequate reasons for denial of the refund of service tax paid prior to 01.07.2012. He further submits that the service tax was exempted under the negative list regime w.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... No exemption was available to the impugned activities undertaken by the Appellant during the period prior to 01.07.2012 and the Adjudicating Authority has therefore rightly rejected the refund claim of the Appellant." 7. Further, we find that during the relevant period, the activity of the Appellant was liable to service tax and they paid the service tax accordingly, and thereafter, filed the refund for the period 2009-10 to June 2012 vide refund application dated 17.03.2017. The only justification given in the application for seeking the refund is that the service tax on the impugned activities was exempted vide Entry No. 12 of Mega Exemption Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Punjab & Harya....