Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Missing seized records must be considered while testing ITC claim; duplicate GST demands ordered corrected: Delhi High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be rejected without addressing taxpayer’s grounds: Allahabad High Court. *  Surplus IGST credit can offset CGST, SGST shortfall: GSTAT. *  GST refund can’t be denied when cancelled airfares are returned with tax: GSTAT. *  3 Hearing notices issued within 2 minutes: Gujarat High Court flags portal flaw, seeks report. *  GSTR-9, GSTR-9C filing for FY 2025-26 enabled; pending GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B must be filed first. *  Dupattas are exempt fabrics, can’t be taxed as fibres at 4%: Madras High Court. *  Full transitional credit allowed on capital goods received after GST rollout: GSTAT denies Rs. 6.99 lakh export duty credit. *  GST return mismatch alone can’t justify fraud proceedings: GSTAT orders fresh adjudication under section 73. *  Supplier found non-existent later can’t alone justify input tax credit denial: GSTAT. *  GST interest stops once tax reaches government account, can’t run until return filing: GSTAT. *  Cancelled flat booking- GST refund can’t be denied without excluding COVID period from limitation: GSTAT. *  India notifies rules of origin for India–New Zealand FTA. *  Incomplete E-bike kits classifiable as complete vehicles, but not eligible for CKD duty concession: CESTAT. *  Same GST rate on main input and output can’t by itself bar inverted duty refund: GSTAT. *  Unjust enrichment doesn’t apply to customs refunds from assessments finalised before July 13, 2006: Gujarat High Court. *  CENVAT credit can’t be denied solely because plant And machinery are embedded in earth: Karnataka High Court. *  DFIA exports ineligible for RoDTEP benefits; customs directs repayment with applicable interest. *  Second E-Way bill alone doesn’t prove another supply: GSTAT. *  Bail denied in Rs. 1.19 crore fake GST refund case over risk of accused absconding again: Punjab and Haryana High Court. *  GST registration can be restored after revocation deadline if outstanding dues are paid: Gauhati High Court. *  Multiple GST proceedings over same suppliers: Calcutta High Court directs dept. to share findings for adjudication. *  E-Governance portal services not OIDAR, fixed deposit interest not taxable: CESTAT. *  Rs. 500 Stamp duty required on authority letters for CAs, CMA and GST practitioners in Pune GST division.  *  Rs. 1.10 crore GST refund must be paid in cash after business closure: Allahabad High Court. *  Godown rent attracts 18% GST even when used exclusively for exempt agricultural warehousing: AAR. *  GST portal launches "Multi-State Registration" facility: one master TRN for registration applications across multiple States/UTs. *  RoDTEP scheme extended till 31st December, 2026.  *  Mere disagreement with order can’t override Rs. 20 lakh appeal limit: GSTAT. *  Customs interest can’t be backdated before confiscation liability is determined; nearly 8 year period excluded: Delhi High Court.
Subject News *  GST summons: anticipatory bail maintainable without arrest order, but relief denied in evasion case: Allahabad High Court. *  GST Appeal can’t be decided without hearing taxpayer’s objections to fresh evidence: Allahabad High Court. *  GST ITC can’t be reversed merely because supplier grants discount without reducing tax liability: GSTAT. *  Mere quoting of GST provision is not a valid charge: GSTAT quashes ITC denial. *  Personal hearing mandatory before adverse GST order, even without taxpayer’s request: Rajasthan High Court. *  Parallel bail pleas without full disclosure amount to abuse of process Rs. 43.08 crore GST case sent for fresh hearing: Supreme Court. *  GST refund based on unchallenged advance ruling can’t be recovered using later circular: GSTAT. *  Payment of GST alone doesn’t end interest and penalty liability when tax and interest remain unpaid beyond 30 days of notice: GSTAT. *  GST demand over builders’ 80% procurement rule requires reasoned adjudication: GSTAT. *  Eligible ITC doesn’t automatically entitle taxpayers to compensation cess refund on domestic sales: GSTAT. *  GST confiscation order passed before reply deadline invalid: GSTAT. *  GST interest can’t be retained after tax refund on delayed export receipts: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be dismissed over pre-deposit shortfall without opportunity To respond: Bombay High Court. *  DGGI SCN can’t be challenged before reply and adjudication:Chhattisgarh High Court. *  GST input tax credit can’t be denied solely due to supplier’s retrospective registration cancellation: GSTAT. *  GST notice must explain fraud allegations; merely repeating section 74 Is not enough:  Himachal Pradesh High Court. *  Audit detection alone can’t justify GST fraud penalty; specific suppression must be proved: GSTAT. *  GST order uploaded only under ‘Additional Notices’ tab without separate intimation set aside: Calcutta High Court. *  Service Tax appeal can’t be rejected for missing pre-deposit proof when payment is already recorded: CESTAT. *  SGST dept. can’t hear appeal against CGST order: Calcutta High Court. *  Mere dispatch of tax order can’t prove service or make appeal time-barred: CESTAT. *  Dealer incentives can’t be taxed merely on ledger entries: CESTAT. *  DGFT orders quashed for failure to supply DRI letter relied upon in SCN: Bombay High Court. *  GST penalty u/s 122(1A) can’t apply to Pre-2021 transactions; unregistered beneficiaries also covered: Delhi High Court. *  Expired E-way bill caused by wrong PIN code can’t justify GST penalty without intent to evade tax: GSTAT. *  Used railway rails can’t be taxed as track material without proof they are fit for reuse: CESTAT. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand on different issue: Delhi High Court. *  ITC dispute involves no question of law: GSTAT directs appeal to Vice-President. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand On different issue: Delhi High Court. *  No E-way bill required for interstate goods movement in november 2017: GSTAT quashes detention and penalty.  

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