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

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/Case Law/2014-15/2366

Whether Cenvat Credit of service tax paid on input services used in the construction of immovable property which is further rented out be availed?

Case:OBEROI MALL LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, MUMBAI

 
Citation:2014-TIOL-1757-CESTAT-MUM
 
Brief Fact:
 
The appeal and stay petition are directed against order-in-original No. 04-06/ST-II/RS/2014 dated 30/01/2014 passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai. Vide the impugned order, the learned adjudicating authority has disallowed Cenvat Credit amounting to Rs.2,02,62,906/- availed by the appellant in respect of various input services relating to construction of mall which was subsequently rented out to various customers. Apart from the service tax demand, interest liability has also been confirmed and equivalent amount of penalty under Section 78 and a penalty of Rs.5,000/- under Section 77 were also imposed. Aggrieved of the same, the appellant is before us.
 
Appellant contention:
 
The learned Consultant for the appellant submits that this is second round of litigation. In the first round of litigation, when the matter had come up before this Tribunal, this Tribunal had granted stay vide order No.S/163-165/13/CSTB/C-I dated 14/01/2013=2013-TIOL-604-CESTATMUM and thereafter vide Order No. ST/CO/91025 to 91027/13 dated 22/05/2013 = 2013-TIOL- 1241-CESTAT-MUM the matter was remanded back to the adjudicating authority to give clear finding as to why the appellant is not eligible for the benefit of service tax paid on inputs services in respect of construction services, in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Cadila Healthcare Ltd.{2013 (30) ST 3} = 2013-TIOL-12-HC-AHM-STand the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Navaratna S.G. Highway Prop (P) Ltd. {2012 (28) STR 166 (Tri-Ahmd-2012-TIOL-1245-CESTAT-AHM. In the second round of litigation, the adjudicating authority has once again confirmed the demand by denying the credit by relying on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Galaxy Mercantile Ltd. = 2013-TIOL-751-HCALL- ST. The learned Consultant submits that in the Galaxy Mercantile Ltd. case, the question for consideration before the Hon'ble High Court was, whether Cenvat credit on inputs and capital goods could be availed in respect of a building constructed which was subsequently used for warehousing purpose. In that case, the Tribunal vide order dated 24/07/2013 2013-TIOL-1442-CESTAT-DEL, by majority decision, held that Cenvat Credit availed on inputs service is not required to be reversed and only directed pre-deposit of 35% of the Cenvat Credit attributable to inputs and capital goods. The said decision was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad and the same was upheld. Therefore, the question of availing Cenvat Credit on inputs service on the construction of immovable property was not considered by the Hon'ble High Court at all. Therefore, reliance on the same decision for confirmation of service tax demand is clearly not sustainable.
The learned Consultant further submits that as per the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Sai Sahmita Storages (P) Ltd. = 2011-TIOL-863-HC-AP-CXthe credit of service tax paid on input service is available when the same is used for construction of immovable property, which is thereafter used for warehousing. He also referred to the decision in the case of Navratna S.G. Highway Prop. (P) Ltd., wherein a similar view was taken. Accordingly he pleads for grant of stay.
 
 
Respondent Contention:
The learned Commissioner (AR) appearing for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the adjudicating authority and it is his contention that the impugned demands are sustainable in law and the appellant be put to terms.
 
Reasoning of Judgment:
As regards the reliance placed by the adjudicating authority in the case of Galaxy Mercantile Ltd., the said decision did not pertain to eligibility of Cenvat Credit on input services which were used in the construction of an immovable property. The question for consideration before the Hon'ble High Court was only limited to eligibility of Cenvat Credit on inputs and capital goods. In fact, in the said case, this Tribunal had held that the appellant was eligible for availing Cenvat Credit of service tax paid on input services and therefore, reliance placed by the adjudicating authority on this decision does not support the Revenue's case at all.
 
We further observe that the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of                            Sai Sahmita Storages (P) Ltd. and this tribunal in the case of Navratna S.G. Highway Pro. (P) Ltd. has held that Cenvat Credit of service tax paid on input services used in the construction of immovable property would be available if such immovable property is used for rendering other taxable services. Following the same in the present case also, we hold that the appellant has made out a prima facie case for grant of stay. Accordingly, we grant unconditional waiver from pre-deposit of dues adjudged against the appellant and stay recovery thereof during the pendency of the appeal.
 
 
Decision : Stay granted

Comment:
The tribunal while delivering its decision stated that there is no such bar on the availment of input services used in the construction of immovable property to the extent such constructed property is further used in the rendering of other output services.
 
Prepared By: Meet Jain

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