Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Service tax penalty can’t survive when assessee acted on dept.’s own view of non-taxability: Delhi High Court. *  GST section 74 extended limitation questionable when form 26AS mismatch was already known: Karnataka High Court grants interim relief. *  CGST demand prima facie impermissible after state GST settlement under section 128A: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court asks GSTAT to sympathetically consider delay as taxpayers pursued remedy before wrong forum. *  Supreme Court stays Tripura High Court ruling protecting genuine buyers from ITC denial over supplier’s GST default. *  Diary entries alone can’t prove clandestine removal of goods: CESTAT quashes excise penalty on steel trader. *  Customs could investigate preferential tariff claims even before sec. 28DA: Delhi High Court. *  Customs dept. relied on fake AI generated case laws: supreme court quashes Rs. 425.28 crore penalty. *  No GST exemption in affiliation and annual registration charges for admission or conduct Of examinations: GSTAT. *  Mere invoices, cheque payments insufficient to establish genuine movement of goods: GSTAT restores Rs. 43.44 lakh ITC demand. *  Consolidated GST show cause notice covering multiple financial years is not without jurisdiction: Delhi High Court. *  Construction of independent houses on separate plots not taxable as ‘Residential Complex’ without common facilities: CESTAT. *  GST penalty exceeding statutory maximum unsustainable; Allahabad High Court quashes ? 50,000/- penalty after taxpayer filed return and paid late fee. *  GST order against standard chartered bank passed without hearing set aside by Bombay High Court. *  Retracted statements can’t be relied upon without cross-examination: CESTAT quashes gold confiscation. *  Burden to prove misclassification lies on customs department: CESTAT. *  CESTAT quashes Rs. 98 lakh excise demand on clearance of used refractory brick scrap. *  Service tax demand on irrigation works quashed: Karnataka High Court rules sale of goods component not taxable as service. *  GSTAT restores tax and penalty for transporting iron scrap without E-way bill citing intent to evade tax. *  Madras High Court stays GST recovery from directors without opportunity to show cause under section 89. *  Madras high court stays GST recovery notice against directors; finds prima facie case on applicability of section 79(1)(c). *  Procedural lapses can’t justify harsh punishment without serious customs breach: CESTAT quashes customs broker licence revocation. *  Service tax payable on land leasing and sports complex charges: CESTAT. *  Settled customs dispute can’t be reopened through Article 226 challenge to interest liability: Delhi High Court. *  Mere facilitation of customs clearance can’t establish knowledge of smuggling: Madras High Court. *  GST registration cancellation stayed: Allahabad High Court questions 99% ITC utilisation cap under rule 86B. *  Composition scheme lapses automatically on crossing Rs. 1.5 crore turnover: GSTAT. *  Gujarat High Court quashes GST cancellation orders after officer relied on non-existent AI-generated case laws. *  Importers liable for customs duty benefits availed through manipulated scrips: Delhi High Court. *  Procedural E-way bill lapse alone can’t justify penalty where genuine transaction and absence of tax evasion are established: GSTAT.
Subject News *  Documentary evidence dominates probe, further custody unwarranted: mumbai court grants bail in Rs. 22.44 crore customs duty evasion case. *  Business premises can’t remain sealed for non-participation in GST search: Allahabad High Court. *  GST pre-deposit must be refunded proportionately when taxpayer partly succeeds in appeal: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court grants 30 days to file GST appeal; keeps pre-deposit issue open due to deposit in parallel CGST proceedings. *  GST demand can’t exceed amount proposed in SCN: Allahabad High Court quashes Rs. 20.47 Crore order. *  Hundreds-of-crores GST demand and heavy 10% pre-deposit no ground to bypass statutory appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Delhi High Court refuses to entertain challenge to gold confiscation due to statutory appeal remedy and unexplained delay. *  Procedural error in customs broker licence inquiry can be rectified through remand: Delhi High Court. *  GSTR-2A mismatch alone can’t justify ITC denial without invoice-wise verification; personal hearing mandatory: GSTAT. *  GST order passed without uploading personal hearing notices violates sec. 75(4): Allahabad High Court. *  TAX EVASION - Sec. 74 GST SCN quashed for not spelling out fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression: Allahabad High Court. *  STPI’s SOFTEX certification and NoC charges taxable as business support services: CESTAT. *  Suspicion can’t replace proof: CESTAT quashes penalty in alleged gold-smuggling operation. *   Limitation runs from communication of order: Madras High Court upholds rejection of delayed GST Appeals. *  Rajasthan High Court quashes GST demand over unsigned show cause notice. *  ITC recovery upheld where supplier failed to deposit GST: Rajasthan High Court. *  Customs commissioner’s empowered to make port trust liable for duty on pilfered goods: Supreme Court. *  Rectification proceedings can’t be used to challenge an uncontested GST assessment through a writ petition: Andhra Pradesh HC. *  GST proceedings against deceased proprietor unsustainable without notice to legal heir: GSTAT. *  Mere availment of ineligible self-assessed ITC doesn’t amount to suppression without evidence of fraud or wilful misstatement: GSTAT. *  Disposal of mining overburden by entity authorised by mining lease holder constitutes taxable service: CESTAT. *  Toll plaza data not mandatory for ITC refund: GSTAT. *  Disputed GST fraud allegations require investigation: Punjab and Haryana High Court makes interim bail absolute in alleged fraud and GST fraud case. *  Non-manufacturer contractor liable to deposit excess excise duty collected from buyer: CESTAT. *  GST order can’t reject taxpayer’s reply as “not satisfactory” without reasons: Madhya Pradesh High Court. *  Uncorroborated statements can’t establish alleged diversion of duty-free goods: CESTAT. *  Erection services were not liable to service tax prior to 10th september 2004: CESTAT. *  Sec. 74 GST notice must spell out statutory ingredients for invoking extended tax demand proceedings: Allahabad High Court. *  No jurisdictional bar under section 6(2)(b) in parallel CGST SGST proceedings: Delhi High Court refuses to bypass GST appeal remedy. *  Madras High Court remits GST demand for fresh adjudication after taxpayer claims it was unaware of SCN following business closure.  

Comments

Publish Date: 27 Feb, 2010
Print   |    |  Comment

Deeming Construction Service: Caught in Tax Net

 

Deeming Construction Service: Caught in Tax Net

 

Prepared By:

CA Pradeep Jain,

Siddharth Rutiya

 

The Budget 2010 was eagerly awaited by all sections of the society. Never before, any budget had been so awaited by many of the Indian citizens. Finally the Finance Minister Mr. Pranab Mukherjee announced the Budget on 26-02-2010. This budget brought many welcome steps but also some disappointments to various sections and business classes of the society. Increasing worth of Service tax, which clearly depicted by the statistical data that service sector contributes nearly 60% of the GDP, leads to the clear intentions of the Finance Minister to increase the scope of Service Tax. During the budget speech Mr. Mukherjee cleared his intention for widening such scope, wherein he said –

 

“......I had another option to bring all services under service tax. I am not opting for this either at this stage.....”

 

Budget 2010 not only widened the scope of Service tax levy by introducing new services but also widened the scope of existing services like Commercial or Industrial Construction Service [Section 65(105)(zzq)], Construction of complex [Section 65(105)(zzzh)], Commercial coaching and Training services etc by bringing amendments in the definition of such services. We in this written articulation are attempting to highlight the impact of changes brought under Commercial or Industrial Construction services [Section 65(105)(zzq)] and Construction of Complex services [Section 65(105)(zzzh)] services.

 

Finance Minister, in Chapter V of the Finance Bill, 2010 has proposed to insert an Explanation to Section 65(105)(zzq) and Section 65(105)(zzzh) of Finance Act, 1994 which relates to the provision of deemed services.

 

In Section 65(105)(zzq) which relates to commercial or industrial construction service Government has inserted an explanation which reads as follows –

 

“Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-clause, the construction of a new building which is intended for sale, wholly or partly, by a builder or any person authorised by the builder before, during or after construction (except in cases for which no sum is received from or on behalf of the prospective buyer by the builder or the person authorised by the builder before grant of completion certificate by the authority competent to issue such certificate under any law for the time being in force) shall be deemed to be service provided by the builder to the buyer;”

 

Similarly in Section 65(105)(zzzh) which relates to Construction of complex service, the Finance Minister has inserted the explanation which reads as follows –

 

“Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-clause, construction of a complex which is intended for sale, wholly or partly, by a builder or any person authorised by the builder before, during or after construction (except in cases for which no sum is received from or on behalf of the prospective buyer by the builder or a person authorised by the builder before the grant of completion certificate by the authority competent to issue such certificate under any law for the time being in force) shall be deemed to be service provided by the builder to the buyer;”

 

The basic intent for bringing the said explanation was to cover cases where in the provision of said services of construction were so devised in a manner that it out rightly does not fall under the purview of said service. Such cases included –

 

ð                 Cases where in the entire consideration is paid by the prospective buyers/flat owners after the residential complex has been fully developed. Thus, in such situation the parties argue that such transactions are in the nature of outright sale of immovable property and admittedly no service tax shall be chargeable on such transfer; or

 

ð                 Cases wherein the prospective buyer books a flat before its construction commences /completes and pays the consideration in instalments and later he takes possession of the property when the entire consideration is paid and the construction is over.

 

ð                 Cases wherein the initial transaction between the buyer and the builder is done through an ‘Agreement to Sell’. At such stage neither full consideration is paid nor there is any transfer in ownership of the property although an agreement to ultimately sell the property under settled terms is signed i.e. the builder continues to remain the legal owner of the property.

 

Later at the conclusion of the contract and completion of the payments relating thereto, another instrument called ‘Sale Deed’ is executed on payment of appropriate stamp duty. This instrument represents the legal transfer of property from the promoter to the buyer.

 

ð                 Cases wherein at the initial stage, a ‘Sale Of Undivided Portion Of The Land’ agreement is created between promoter and all prospective buyers (including person who has provided the vacant land for construction) and the property rights are transferred to the buyers though it does not demarcate a part of land, which can be associated with a particular buyer. As the vacant land has lower value, such a system is adopted to pay lesser stamp duty.

 

Simultaneously, an instrument called ‘Construction Agreement’ is simultaneously executed under which the obligations of the promoter to get property constructed and that of the buyer to pay the required consideration are incorporated.

 

Such cases led to confusion, disputes and discrimination in terms of service tax payment on bases of different patterns of execution, terms of payment and legal formalities. Thus, to harmonize the levy and to bring parity in tax treatment such an explanation was added. Now by the virtue of the said explanation all activities of construction shall be deemed to be taxable services unless the entire payment for the property is paid by the prospective buyer after completion of construction (including its certification by the local authorities).

 

But this is not still over. The definition of Commercial or Industrial Construction as well as Construction of complex has been proposed to be changed. But there is no change in the definition of “Works Contract” service. If a builder pays the works contract under sales tax and he enters such contracts then he is not liable to pay the service tax. The litigation will continue. It is rightly said that the litigation and law are twins and will go along.

 

***********

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