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: 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