Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  GST registration cancellation without reasons amounts to ‘Economic Death’ of business: Supreme Court. *  No GST refund if appeal before GSTAT is filed late: Gujarat High Court. *  Mere upload of GST notice on portal not valid service, appeal limitation won’t start: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Taxpayer can’t be penalised for missing notices hidden under ‘Additional Notices/Orders’: Calcutta High Court allows fresh adjudication. *  State tax officer can’t issue GST SCN beyond CBIC-assigned jurisdiction: Bombay High Court stays recovery proceedings. *  Earlier 7.5% Pre-Deposit must count towards mandatory 10% for Appeal: Uttarakhand high court quashes CESTAT Order. *  Third Parties can’t challenge GST Advance Rulings merely due to financial impact: Karnataka HC *  GST SCN generated using AI tool quashed: Punjab & Haryana High Court *  Bank Attachment Quashed as Madras HC Quashes GST Order Issued Against Deceased Person *  ITC Blocking Order for Failure to Record ‘Reason to Believe’ U/R 86A Quashed: Allahabad High Court *  Govt Extends GSTAT Appeal Filing Deadline From 30 June to July 31, 2026 *  GST Demand on RWA Stayed: Allahabad High Court Questions Taxability of Electricity Distribution to Flat Owners *  CBIC Clarifies Jurisdiction After GST Registration Transfer: Earlier Proceedings Remain Valid, New Officer to Continue Action *  GST authorities’ certification not mandatory for reimbursement, but tax payment must be proven: Karnataka HC *  Contractor can’t seek gst reimbursement through writ when contract has arbitration clause: Karnataka HC *  Unsigned Order Is No Order in Law: AP HC Quashes GST Assessment Order for Want of Officer’s Signature *  Customs Can’t Levy Rs. 1.36 Crore Cost Recovery Charges Without Proof of Full-Day Officer Deployment: CESTAT  *  12% IGST Payable On Imported Dialysis Machine Parts: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Admits Challenge to GST Limitation Extension Notifications; Grants Protection Against Coercive Recovery *  Criminal Case Can’t Run Parallel to GST Proceedings on Same Facts: Allahabad High Court *  Allahabad High Court Stays GST Detention Order; Directs Release of Vehicle and Goods on Deposit of Rs. 1.44 Lakh *  Service Tax Can’t Be Levied on Loss-Making Contracts: Gujarat High Court *  GSTN Mandates Ship-to GSTIN in e-Invoice and e-Way Bill APIs; Introduces Voluntary e-Way Bill Closure Facility from August 1, 2026 *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred When Taxpayer Was Pursuing Rectification Remedy: Telangana High Court *  Absence of E-Way Bill and Transport Documents Justifies Customs Seizure U/s 110: Gauhati HC *  Madras High Court Upholds GST Late Fee and Penalty for Non-Filing of Annual Return, Dismisses Challenge  *  GST Records, Purchase Documents Sufficient to Discharge Burden Under Customs Act: CESTAT Orders Release of 3.65 Kg Gold  *  No Sugar Cess Payable on Sugar Exported Out of India: CESTAT *  Road Construction Services Exempt and SCN Time-Barred: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Based Solely on Form 26AS  *  ITC Freeze Upheld After GST Dept Find Suppliers Were Allegedly Fake Bill-Trading Entities: Madras HC 
Subject News *  Input service benefits can’t be denied: CESTAT allows export refund despite MMTC acting as Canalising agency. *  No service tax demand without proof of service of SCN: CESTAT. *  Service tax demand quashed as dept. fails to prove service of SCN: CESTAT *  GST : Mere allegation of inadequate consideration of reply not enough to invoke writ jurisdiction: Delhi High Court *  Onerous conditions imposed for provisional release of seized imported goods shouldn’t amount to virtual denial of relief: CESTAT. *  GST SCN without alleging fraud cannot invoke sec. 74: Karnataka High Court quashes adjudication order. *  Extended Limitation Can’t Be Invoked Merely on Form 26AS Data: CESTAT *  Revenue-Sharing with Restaurants Not Taxable as Business Support Service: CESTAT *  R. 6(3) Option Can’t Be Forced on Taxpayer; CESTAT Quashes Rs. 12.36 Crore CENVAT Credit Demand *  Excise Duty | Power Consumption Alone Can’t Prove Clandestine Manufacture: Karnataka High Court *  Madras High Court Examines DGGI’s Authority to Issue GST Penalty Orders Under Section 122, Adds DGGI as Party *  Proceedings under omitted r. 96(10) can’t survive without saving clause: andhra pradesh high court quashes gst refund recovery *  Excise duty power consumption alone can’t prove clandestine manufacture: karnataka high court *  Madras high court rules GST show cause notices must disclose grounds for invoking extended limitation *  Court Can’t Direct Extension GST Return Deadlines or Waive Interest and Penalties: Karnataka High Court *  GST Notifications Can’t Go Beyond GST Council Recommendations: Madras High Court Quashes SCN on Branded Pulses *  Appeal Can’t Be Dismissed for Delay When Dept’s Own Order Mis-states Limitation Period: CESTAT *  No Evidence of KYC or Due Diligence Breach By Customs Broker: CESTAT Quashes Licence Revocation in Export Overvaluation Case *  Glucometers Are Chemical Analysis Instruments Classifiable Under Tariff Heading 9027: CESTAT *  Validity of Post-GST Service Tax Proceedings Upheld: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Challenge to S. 73 SCN *  Rectified GST Refund Applications Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred If Original Refund Claim Was Filed Within Limitation: Gujarat HC *  Service Tax Refund Can’t Be Denied as Time-Barred When Levy Itself Is Unconstitutional: Gujarat High Court *  Same Officer Can’t Act As Auditor & Adjudicator: Karnataka High Court *  Karnataka High Court Condones 324-Day Delay, Revives Customs Appeal in Jewellery Pilferage Case  *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Order Passed Ex Parte Despite Prior ITC Reversal; Lifts Bank Attachment *  Tobacco Process Doesn’t Amount to Manufacturing: Madras High Court Quashes Rs. 1.32 Crore Compensation Cess Demand  *  Recovery Notice Unsustainable After Voluntary Reversal of Unutilised Credit: CESTAT  *  GST | ‘System Generated’ SCN Without Officer Details Invalid: Allahabad HC  *  Electronic Records Without Statutory Certification Requirements Can’t Justify Undervaluation Allegations: CESTAT *  Madras High Court Stays GST Order, Finds Prima Facie Merit in Plea Against S. 74 Proceedings Based on S. 73 Intimation  

Comments

Publish Date: 26 Mar, 2012
Print   |    |  Comment

Budget 2012- Reconstructing Construction Industry

Budget, 2012 – Reconstructing the Construction Industry

Prepared By:
CA Pradeep Jain
CA Preeti Parihar

Introduction:-
 
Service tax on Reality sector is once again a talk of the town after announcement of Budget, 2012. This budget has proposed the implementation of service tax by negative list wherein all the services except those specifically excluded will be taxable. The proposal contained in the budget seems to redefine the service tax applicability on the construction contracts. This piece of depiction is all about building the service tax on reality sector.
 
Pre budget scene:-
 
Prior to announcement of budget, three categories were meant for the construction industry –
 
· Commercial or industrial construction service,
· Works Contract service, and
· Construction of residential complex service.
 
Service tax was levied under the above three categories in respect of construction of various small and large buildings, by whatever named called. Under Commercial or industrial construction service, construction of a new building or part thereof was taxable provided the building or part is used or intended to be used for commerce or industry. Under works contract, service was leviable if the contract was for providing both the material and services. Service tax under this head was applicable if the material involved in the works contract was leviable to service tax. The construction of residential houses was chargeable to service tax under the category of Construction of residential complex service. Every head had its own benefits for eg. abatement at specified rates was allowed in case of Commercial or industrial construction service, composition scheme was applicable in case of works contract and in case of Construction of residential complex service, exemption was being granted to the construction of upto 12 residential complexes. Thus, all the schemes had their own benefits.
 
Post Budget scene:-
 
The budget, 2012 has proposed the service tax by negative list. The services specified in the negative list are specifically excluded from the purview of service tax. The negative list primarily contains the services of public utility. So far as construction industry is concerned, it contain the construction services pertaining to road, bridge, tunnel, terminal, pollution control or effluent treatment plant, etc. subject to certain conditions. These exemptions in the old scheme were provided by way of giving the exclusion clause in the definition of the respective services. Besides the services of public utility, Services by way of erection or construction of original works pertaining to airport, port or railways, single residential unit otherwise as a part of a residential complex, low- cost houses by approved authority up to a specified area, or in relation to a housing project are also excluded. Further, valuation rules, abatement scheme and reverse charge method have also been amended having major impact on the reality sector.
 
Analysis of Pre/Post Budget scenario:-
 
· Only works contract scheme survives- Prior to budget, there were three specified services of treating various types of construction projects. However, after budget, there seems to be only one category which is included in the declared list of activities specified in Section 66E. This section includes the “construction of a complex, building, civil structure or a part thereof, including a complex or building intended for sale to a buyer, wholly or partly, except where the entire consideration is received after issuance of certificate of completion by the competent authority”. Thus, in this clause, the entire construction industry has been covered and the description of this service gives insight of the works contract service. This fact also gets favour from the fact that the Service tax (Determination of value of services) Rules, 2006 have been amended and rule 2A has been substituted which describes the manner of valuing the works contract service. Further, no abatement has been proposed for any other service under the new notification no. 13/2012-ST dated 17.3.2012. Also, the reverse charge method has been extended to the works contract scheme under notification no. 15/2012-ST dated 17.3.2012. All these factors clearly indicate that all the other services pertaining to the construction industry have been scrapped and only works contract survives.
 
· Construction on behalf of buyer covered - The inclusion of works contract in the declared list of services with the description “construction of a complex, building, civil structure or a part thereof, including a complex or building intended for sale to a buyer, wholly or partly, except where the entire consideration is received after issuance of certificate of completion by the competent authority” clarifies the fact that where the owner of the land undertakes the construction for the prospective buyer for a consideration whether or not received in piecemeal will be covered under works contract. This is simply clarifying the things that were already inbuilt in the works contract scheme prior to budget. At the time of Budget, 2010; when the explanation was added in the definitions of Construction of residential complex service and Commercial or industrial construction service wherein it was clarified that these two heads will be applicable even if the payment is received in installments and the possession or ownership is transferred at the end. At that time since no such explanation was added to the works contract service, it was contended by a class of learned scholars that it is merely a mistake and it will be rectified soon. We, the authors of this article were on the other side who were of the opinion that there was no need of such explanation as the same thing in the case of works contract was already settled by the decision of Apex Court in the case of Raheja Development Corporation V. State Of Karnataka [2005 Ntc (Vol. 27)-243]. In this decision it was held that even if the payment is made in installments, then also, the transaction would fall in the category of the works contract. Our articles on the even issue were published on the prestigious website taxindiaonline.com. Thus, our clear and distinct view has now been specifically proven by the recent budget wherein it is specifically provided that the works contract would be applicable even if the construction is taken on behalf of prospective buyers who pay the consideration in installments.  
 
· Exemption to one residential unit only- Under negative list exemption has been granted to the Services provided by way of erection or construction of original works pertaining to single residential unit otherwise as a part of a residential complex. Thus, single residential unit has been exempted which has narrowed the scope of exemption previously contained in the Construction of residential complex service. In this service, construction of upto 12 residential units was exempted in the definition itself. But the proposed scheme exempts only one residential unit, that too pertaining to original works. Here the original works is defined as new constructions or additions and alterations to abandoned or damaged structures on land that are required to make them workable. Thus, where the construction pertains to old building that is not substantially damaged, it would not be exempted. Also, the cases where finishing work is undertaken will not be covered. Here ambiguity arises in what context the word “single residential unit” is used. Whether the single residential unit is to be checked assessee-wise or place wise or period wise. This has not been clarified and may lead to litigation. Thus, the exemption of 12 residential units has been reduced drastically to only one residential unit.
 
· Amendments in works contract scheme- Under proposed scheme, only works contract has found a place, that too with a no. of amendments therein relating to the valuation and other aspects. We have also written an article on the budget implications on the works contract scheme. The key amendments in the works contract scheme are as follows:-
 
- The rate of works contract is increased from 4% to 4.8%, w.e.f. 1.4.2012.
- The reverse charge method has been extended to the works contract scheme wherein liability of paying the 50% service tax is casted on the recipient of works contract service and remaining still lies on the provider of the service.
- New rule 2A is being substituted in the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006 which prescribes the manner of determining the taxable value under works contract.
- The optional composition scheme of works contract is proposed to be withdrawn. Instead, actual value of material supplied is required to be ascertained for the purpose of determining the taxable value. Where such ascertainment is not possible, then only abatement at a fixed percentage is allowed.
 
While parting:-
 
The recent budget has brought more costs and low benefits to the reality sector. The options have been scrapped. The scope of exemptions has been narrowed. The entire construction industry is now left with only one option – Works contract, that too with increased complexities. Let’s see how does the man with no alternative reacts in this entirely new scenario. 

Department News


Query

 
PRADEEP JAIN, F.C.A.

Head Office : -

Address :
"SUGYAN", H - 29, SHASTRI NAGAR, JODHPUR (RAJ.) - 342003

Phone No. :
0291 - 2439496, 0291 - 3258496

Mobile No. :
09314722236

Fax No. :0291 - 2439496


Branch Office : -

Address:
1008, 10th FLOOR, SUKH SAGAR COMPLEX,
NEAR FORTUNE LANDMARK HOTEL, USMANPURA,
ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380013

Phone No. :
079-32999496, 27560043

Mobile No. :
093777659496, 09377649496

E-mail :pradeep@capradeepjain.com