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 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