Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  The GSTN has issued an Advisory dated 21.04.2026 about the introduction of an Offline Tool for the Invoice Management System (IMS)  *  CBIC extends due dates for filing of FORM GSTR 3B  for the month of April 2026 *  Interest cannot be imposed in adjudication order, if not demanded/quantified in show cause notice : Allahabad HC *  Wheelchairs with toileting facility eligible for exemption: CESTAT affirms customs duty exemption to importer *  Industries urge GST council to allow inverted duty refunds on input services *  Tamil Nadu GST dept introduced virtual hearing facility for GST appeals under under section 107 of the TNGST act: detailed guidelines  *  CIC urges authorities to implement GST evasion complaint tracking system *  Even if the assessee opts "NO" for personal hearing in form DRC-06 ,The mandatory requirement under section 75(4) to grant opportunity of hearing cannot be waived:Gujarat High Court  *  Glufosinate imports curbs imposed by govt *  Government extends Re-import period for exported cut & polished diamonds *  CIC flags lack of tracking system for tax evasion complaints,urges GST authorities to improve transparency *  No Custodial Interrogation needed in GST fraud case based on documentary evidence already in Department's Possession : Chattisgarh HC *  Orders under section cannot be sustained if passed without considering the taxpayer's objections and without granting a personal hearing:Gujarat High Court *  Mere cancellation of supplier's registration cannot,by itself,justify denial of ITC or cancellation of the recipient's registration:Bombay High Court *  High Court sets aside GST notice citing factual errors and natural justice violations *  Provisional Bank Attachment under Section. 110 of Customs Act Unsustainable Beyond Statutory period without Extension order: Bombay HC orders to defreeze accounts *  Post Clearance MRP Alteration by Distributor Does not attract Differential Customs Duty: CESTAT *  DGFT Expands scope of 'Screws' classification under RoDTEP Scheme  *  E-way bills surze to all time high of 140.6 million in March *  GST Exemption Allowed on Pure Labour Services for Standalone Houses: AAR  *  GST Payable Only on Margin in Second-Hand Car Sales, Subject to Strict Conditions and No ITC Claim: AAR *  DGFT rolls out procedure for allocation of calcined coke *  GST portal update : Pre-deposit amount now editable in Appeals *  J&K HC declared TMT scrap a 'Specified Good' eligibile for GST refunds under Support Scheme  *  Pigmy agents are employees of banks; no GST can be levied on commission  paid to them : Karnataka HC *  DGFT Revises HS Code Description for Screws Under RoDTEP *  GST Registration Cancellation Invalid Without Proper Service of Notice: Allahabad High Court. *  Bengaluru CGST | GST Backlog Appeals Deadline Fixed at June 30, 2026 *  No Time Bar on Refund of Service Tax for Services Not Rendered: CESTAT  Remands Indiabulls Case for Unjust Enrichment Check. *  Supreme Court Holds Renewable Energy Incentive Must Benefit Generators, Not Be Adjusted in Tariff
Subject News *   Delhi HC Quashes Order, Says Reminder Cannot Validate Improperly Served GST SCN *  KARNATAKA HIGH COURT REMANDS GST SHORTFALL MATTER DUE TO ABSENCE OF PERSONAL HEARING   *  CESTAT cancels confiscation and penalties on imported computer cabinet cases: Custom duty restricted to 111 surplus units *  Deposit of tax during search or investigation cannot be treated as 'Voluntary Payment' : Bombay High Court *  Section 76 of the CGST cannot be invoked where the tax has already been duly deposited, even if through another registration of the same entity: Madras High Court *  Sec 74 allows use of material regardless of source; illegality or flaws in section 67 search do not vitiate valid adjudication: HC *  Inter-State transfer of ITC on Amalgamation permissible as given under section 18(3) read with rule 41 of the CGST rules, 2017: Gujarat High Court *  HC: No GST on commisson paid to Pigmy Agents *  IGST refund denial on illegible bill of lading invalid absent chance to furnish docs; merit reconsideration in appeals directed: HC *  ITC is not admissible on GST paid on leasehold rights of land used fpr setting up an air seperation plant: AAAR,Tamil Nadu *  GST: No penalty under Section 74 after voluntary ITC reversal due to non-existent supplier : High Court *  TN AAAR denies GST ITC on Land Lease under Sec. 17(5)(d) for setting up plant and machinery *  GST proceedings quashed as notices sent to old address, despite updated address in registration *  Importer Can’t Be Penalised for Alleged IGCR Procedural Lapses Without Evidence of Departmental Error: CESTAT *  Structured Healthcare Training Not ‘Charitable Activity’, 18% GST Payable: AAR  *  CESTAT As The Appellate Authority For Central Sales Tax Disputes: A Paradigm Shift Under Finance Act, 2023 *   Rs. 25K Cost Imposed On SGST Joint Commissioner for Attaching Bank  Accounts Without Forming Mandatory “Opinion”: Bombay HC *   Ex-Parte GST Order Without Hearing Violates Natural Justice: Karnataka  High Court Quashes Adjudication and Bank Attachment.  *   Retrospective GST Cancellation Can’t Invalidate Genuine Transactions:  Jaipur Commissioner (Appeals) Quashes Rs. 95,670 ITC Demand. *   GST Pre-Deposit Non-Compliance: Allahabad High Court Allows Appeal  Subject to Rs. 30 Lakh Balance Deposit, Recognises Offline Filing. *  Documentary Nature of Evidence: Allahabad High Court Grants Bail in Rs. 32.66 Crore Fake ITC Fraud Case *  Supreme Court Flags Systemic Bias in Army’s Permanent Commission Process for Women Officers *  Re-Determination of Land Compensation Can Be Based on Appellate Court Awards, Clarifies Scope of S. 28-A: Supreme Court. *  Supreme Court Imposes Rs. 5 Lakh Costs On Rent Authority Officer For Acting Beyond Jurisdiction. *  DGGI Meerut | Court Denies Bail to Accused in Claiming Fake ITC And Export Refunds *  Denial of GST Rate Revision Benefit to Contractor Violates Article 14: Rajasthan HC *  GST Registration Cancellation for Non-Filing of Returns: Gauhati High Court Directs Restoration on Compliance. *   Supreme Court Quashes FEMA Adjudication Orders, Revives Proceedings at  Show Cause Stage. *   Higher Rank, Harsher Punishment Justified: Supreme Court Restores Dismissal  of Bank Manager in Misappropriation Case. *   Limitation for Export Refund to Be Counted from Foreign Exchange Realisation,  Not From Export Invoices Issuance: CESTAT  

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