Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Dept. Can’t Classify Product as Zarda Scented Tobacco After Repeatedly Approving It As Chewing Tobacco: CESTAT *  Mere Uploading Of GST Order On Portal Is Not “Valid” Service: Tripura HC *  CGST Can Proceed Even If SGST Closed Similar Case Earlier: Delhi HC *  SC upholds 28% GST on online gaming with retrospective effect. *  West Bengal Govt cuts E-way Bill Threshold limit to Rs. 50,000 for intra-state goods movement. *  Criminal Prosecution Under Central Excise Act Can’t Continue After CESTAT Sets Aside Duty Demand on Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Orders for Denial of Personal Hearing; Remands Matter Subject to 10% Deposit *  Ex Parte GST Order: Madras High Court Directs Immediate Removal of Bank/ITC Attachment Upon 25% Deposit *  J.K. Cement Receives GST Demand Order of Rs 8,02,113/- from Ahmedabad Tax Authority *  Delhi Police EOW Busts Alleged Rs. 128 Crore GST Fake Invoice Network. *  REPLY TO SCN CAN’T BE TREATED AS “EMPTY FORMALITY”: ORISSA HIGH COURT QUASHES GST DEMAND OF RS. 57.30 LAKH *  Challenge to CGST Provisions restricting ITC to Bonafide Purchasers : Allahabad HC issues notice *  CBIC Notifies Revised Customs Tariff Values for Edible Oils, Gold, Silver, Brass Scrap and Areca Nuts *  Delhi HC Orders Removal of GST Attachment After Statutory 1 Year Period Expired *  GSTAT Extends Relaxed Appeal Filing Guidelines till December 31, 2026 *  AO fails to Provide Import - Export Data from DGFT to Taxpayer for Reconciliation *  Gold, Silver Imports To Get Costlier As Govt Raises Customs Duty To 10%  *  GSTAT Enables Pre-Payment Access to Document Upload and Checklist for GST Appeal Filing *  GST Portal Restrictions Can’t Override Statute: Gujarat HC Allows Cross-State Transfer Of CGST ITC After Amalgamation *  Centre Revises HS Codes for Large Diameter Steel Pipes Used in Oil & Gas Pipelines *  Customs Duty Liability Arises On Warehouse Clearance Date: Supreme Court *  Government lifts export ban on de-oiled rice bran *  CESTAT Grants 12% Interest on Pre-Deposit for Investigation from Date of Deposit till Refund and Denies Interest on Interest. *  Government Overhauls GST Classification Framework for Non-Alcoholic Beverages; Fruit Juice Drinks, Milk-Based Beverages and Caffeinated Drinks to Attract Revised 5% and 40% GST Rates from May 1, 2026 *  India’s gross GST collections hit a record Rs 2.42 lakh crore in April, up 8.7% *  Customs clearance stalled, revenue hit over MRP dispute *  Shipping Corporation explores Middle East routes as Hormuz tensions disrupt cargo movement *  India, Kenya signs MoU for exchange of pre-arrival customs information *  No demand of Taxes under Reverse Charge if Tax Already Discharged by Service Provider under forward charge *  The India-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement, signed "once-in-a-generation" deal that eliminates tariffs on 100% of Indian exports to New Zealand
Subject News *  Consignment Sales Can’t Be Reclassified as Inter-State Sales Based on Pre-Agreement Evidence: CESTAT *  Exporter Can’t Be Denied Advance Authorization Benefit Due To ICEGATE Technical Glitch: Delhi High Court *  No GST Demand For Mere Wrong Set-Off Of IGST Credit Under CGST And SGST Heads: Kerala HC. *  Cenvat Credit Can’t Be Denied on Input Services Having Nexus With Manufacturing Activities: CESTAT *  Pending Proceedings Can’t Survive Without Saving Clause: Calcutta High Court Quashes GST Demand of Rs. 6.28 Crore After Omission of Rule 96(10) *  Madras HC Quashes GST Demands on TASMAC (Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation) Bar Licence Fee *  GST Proceedings Cannot Survive Omitted Rule Without Saving Clause: Calcutta HC *  Provisional Release Can’t Be Denied Solely On Dept. Suspicion Of Misclassification And Undervaluation Of Imported Goods: CESTAT *  Businesses Should Not Be Kept Outside GST Regime Without Due Process: Gauhati High Court *  Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Reconsideration of Contractors’ Claim for Additional GST Payment After Tax Rate Hike From 12% to 18% *  S. 108 Statements Can’t Be Sole Basis Without Following Section 138B Procedure: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Frames Key Questions on Mandatory Distribution of ITC U/s 20 CGST Act *  Filing of Annexure-B for Refund Applications involving Accumulated ITC using the offline utility in GST portal: GSTN *  No Service Tax on Parent Company’s Un-Invoiced Cost Allocations Without Actual Service or Consideration: CESTAT  *  Calcutta High Court Upholds GST Classification of Polypropylene Leno Bags as Plastic Products *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  GSTAT Issues Major Bench Allocation Framework; All Appeals to First Go Before Division Bench *  ITC Blocking Without Reasoned Order Violates Rule 86A; Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Release of Credit *  Allahabad HC Refuses Bail to CGST Superintendent In Rs. 70 Lakh Bribery Case *  S.130 Can’t Be Invoked Without Prior Tax Determination U/s 73/74: Allahabad High Court Quashes GST Confiscation Proceedings *  SC grants Bail to Rs 54cr GST case  *  Karnataka HC Sets Aside Duplicate GST Orders, Orders Fresh Hearing on GSTIN Cancellation *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  Transfer Of Unutilized ITC After Amalgamation - Supreme Court Issues Notice *  PUNJAB & HARYANA HC QUASHES GST CANCELLATION NOTICE FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE CBIC ENQUIRY REPORT *  LICENSE FEE, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CHARGES NOT INCLUDIBLE IN CUSTOMS VALUE UNLESS THEY ARE A CONDITION OF SALE: CESTAT *  DELHI HC ORDERS REMOVAL OF GST ATTACHMENT AFTER STATUTORY 1 YEAR PERIOD EXPIRED *  CUSTOMS BROKER CAN’T BE FAULTED JUST BECAUSE EXPORTER’S GST REGISTRATION WAS PREVIOUSLY CANCELLED: CESTAT   *  Supreme Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Delhi HC Ruling Holding Real Operator Behind Fake GST Firms Liable As ‘Taxable Person  *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected Merely Because DRC-07 Was Not Uploaded On Portal: Bombay High Court  

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