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
Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/Case Laws/2012-13/1524

Whether construction of 17 residential quarters distributed in different buildings in same compound liable to service tax?

Case:-ARIHANT CONSRUCTION Versus COMMISSSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR-II

Citation:-2013(30) S.T.R. 64(Tri.-Del.)

Brief Facts:-The appellants were regis­tered for rendering the services of construction of complex. They constructed several quarters for Kendriya Vidyalaya. These residential quarters were distrib­uted in different buildings in the same compound. None of the buildings had more than 12 flats in each building. However, Revenue was of the view that the word 'complex' has to be interpreted to mean the entire compound and if the entire compound is considered as one complex, there were 17 flats constructed in the complex and therefore, they had to pay service tax under the entry of con­struction of complexes. A show cause notice was issued and adjudicated confirming duty to the extent of Rs. 2,47,598/- along with interest and penalties under Sections 76 and 78.

Appellant Contentions:-  The submission of the Counsel is that as per the definition of 'resi­dential complex' as given at sub-section (91a) of Section 65, only building having more than 12 residential units in a building will be considered a residential com­plex. He submits that this issue was under dispute and it was decided by the Tri­bunal in the case of Macro Marvel Projects Ltd. v. CST, Chennai [2008 (12) S.T.R. 603 (Tri.-Chennai)] holding that only those buildings of more than 12 residential units in the same building will be covered by the definition of residential com­plex. Revenue being aggrieved by the said decision, had filed an appeal with the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same was dismissed by the Supreme Court as reported at 2012 (25) S.T.R. J154. Therefore, the Counsel submits that there is no merit in the arguments of Revenue and appeal should be heard without any pre- deposit.

Respondent Contentions:-  Learned AR for Revenue is reiterating the submissions which were argued in the case of Macro Marvel Projects, that is the compound of Kendriya Vidyalaya has to be taken as one complex and in this complex, the appellants have constructed more than 12 residential units and therefore, the complex will be covered by the definition at 65(91a) inasmuch as, approval was given by CPWD and Ministry of Human Resources Development for the complex as a whole. He also draws our attention to Explanation-I under sub-section (91a) which defined 'residential unit' stating the residential unit for a single unit for a single apartment for the place.
 
Reasoning of Judgment:-We have considered the submission from both the party and examined the record, the definition of residential complex reads as under:
(91a) "residential complex" means any complex comprising of —
(i) a building or buildings, having more than twelve residential units;
(ii) a  common area; and
(iii) any one or more of facilities or services such as park, lift, park­ing space, community hall, common water supply or effluent treatment system,
located within a premises and the layout of such premises is approved by an authority under any law for the time being in force, but does not include a complex which is constructed by a person directly engaging any other person for designing or planning of the layout, and the construction of such complex is intended for personal use as residence by such person.
Explanation — For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that for the purposes of this clause, —
(a)"personal use" includes permitting the complex for use as resi­dence by another person on rent or without consideration;
(b)"residential unit" means a single house or a single apartment intended for use as a place of residence;
This definition is applicable for taxable entry 65(105)(zzzh) the entry relevant for deciding this appeal as also 65(105)(zzzza) covering works contract which was the entry in the case of Macro Marvel Projects (supra).
We find that the explanation pointed out by the AR has nothing to do with the dispute in hand because that explanation defines 'residential unit' and the definition in dispute is that of 'residential complex'. The explanation can mean only that the building should have 12 residential units. So the explanation is not for interpreting the meaning of 'residential complex'.
Since the Hon. Supreme Court has already confirmed the interpreta­tion in favour of the appellant, we find it proper to waive the requirement of pre- deposit of dues arising from the impugned order and stay collection of such dues during the pendency of the appeal.
 
Decision:-Stay application allowed.

Comment:-The essence of this case is that as residential complex means building should have 12 residential units, construction of 17 residential quarters distributed in different buildings in same compound is not liable to service tax.
 
 

Post a Comment
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