Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Missing seized records must be considered while testing ITC claim; duplicate GST demands ordered corrected: Delhi High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be rejected without addressing taxpayer’s grounds: Allahabad High Court. *  Surplus IGST credit can offset CGST, SGST shortfall: GSTAT. *  GST refund can’t be denied when cancelled airfares are returned with tax: GSTAT. *  3 Hearing notices issued within 2 minutes: Gujarat High Court flags portal flaw, seeks report. *  GSTR-9, GSTR-9C filing for FY 2025-26 enabled; pending GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B must be filed first. *  Dupattas are exempt fabrics, can’t be taxed as fibres at 4%: Madras High Court. *  Full transitional credit allowed on capital goods received after GST rollout: GSTAT denies Rs. 6.99 lakh export duty credit. *  GST return mismatch alone can’t justify fraud proceedings: GSTAT orders fresh adjudication under section 73. *  Supplier found non-existent later can’t alone justify input tax credit denial: GSTAT. *  GST interest stops once tax reaches government account, can’t run until return filing: GSTAT. *  Cancelled flat booking- GST refund can’t be denied without excluding COVID period from limitation: GSTAT. *  India notifies rules of origin for India–New Zealand FTA. *  Incomplete E-bike kits classifiable as complete vehicles, but not eligible for CKD duty concession: CESTAT. *  Same GST rate on main input and output can’t by itself bar inverted duty refund: GSTAT. *  Unjust enrichment doesn’t apply to customs refunds from assessments finalised before July 13, 2006: Gujarat High Court. *  CENVAT credit can’t be denied solely because plant And machinery are embedded in earth: Karnataka High Court. *  DFIA exports ineligible for RoDTEP benefits; customs directs repayment with applicable interest. *  Second E-Way bill alone doesn’t prove another supply: GSTAT. *  Bail denied in Rs. 1.19 crore fake GST refund case over risk of accused absconding again: Punjab and Haryana High Court. *  GST registration can be restored after revocation deadline if outstanding dues are paid: Gauhati High Court. *  Multiple GST proceedings over same suppliers: Calcutta High Court directs dept. to share findings for adjudication. *  E-Governance portal services not OIDAR, fixed deposit interest not taxable: CESTAT. *  Rs. 500 Stamp duty required on authority letters for CAs, CMA and GST practitioners in Pune GST division.  *  Rs. 1.10 crore GST refund must be paid in cash after business closure: Allahabad High Court. *  Godown rent attracts 18% GST even when used exclusively for exempt agricultural warehousing: AAR. *  GST portal launches "Multi-State Registration" facility: one master TRN for registration applications across multiple States/UTs. *  RoDTEP scheme extended till 31st December, 2026.  *  Mere disagreement with order can’t override Rs. 20 lakh appeal limit: GSTAT. *  Customs interest can’t be backdated before confiscation liability is determined; nearly 8 year period excluded: Delhi High Court.
Subject News *  GST summons: anticipatory bail maintainable without arrest order, but relief denied in evasion case: Allahabad High Court. *  GST Appeal can’t be decided without hearing taxpayer’s objections to fresh evidence: Allahabad High Court. *  GST ITC can’t be reversed merely because supplier grants discount without reducing tax liability: GSTAT. *  Mere quoting of GST provision is not a valid charge: GSTAT quashes ITC denial. *  Personal hearing mandatory before adverse GST order, even without taxpayer’s request: Rajasthan High Court. *  Parallel bail pleas without full disclosure amount to abuse of process Rs. 43.08 crore GST case sent for fresh hearing: Supreme Court. *  GST refund based on unchallenged advance ruling can’t be recovered using later circular: GSTAT. *  Payment of GST alone doesn’t end interest and penalty liability when tax and interest remain unpaid beyond 30 days of notice: GSTAT. *  GST demand over builders’ 80% procurement rule requires reasoned adjudication: GSTAT. *  Eligible ITC doesn’t automatically entitle taxpayers to compensation cess refund on domestic sales: GSTAT. *  GST confiscation order passed before reply deadline invalid: GSTAT. *  GST interest can’t be retained after tax refund on delayed export receipts: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be dismissed over pre-deposit shortfall without opportunity To respond: Bombay High Court. *  DGGI SCN can’t be challenged before reply and adjudication:Chhattisgarh High Court. *  GST input tax credit can’t be denied solely due to supplier’s retrospective registration cancellation: GSTAT. *  GST notice must explain fraud allegations; merely repeating section 74 Is not enough:  Himachal Pradesh High Court. *  Audit detection alone can’t justify GST fraud penalty; specific suppression must be proved: GSTAT. *  GST order uploaded only under ‘Additional Notices’ tab without separate intimation set aside: Calcutta High Court. *  Service Tax appeal can’t be rejected for missing pre-deposit proof when payment is already recorded: CESTAT. *  SGST dept. can’t hear appeal against CGST order: Calcutta High Court. *  Mere dispatch of tax order can’t prove service or make appeal time-barred: CESTAT. *  Dealer incentives can’t be taxed merely on ledger entries: CESTAT. *  DGFT orders quashed for failure to supply DRI letter relied upon in SCN: Bombay High Court. *  GST penalty u/s 122(1A) can’t apply to Pre-2021 transactions; unregistered beneficiaries also covered: Delhi High Court. *  Expired E-way bill caused by wrong PIN code can’t justify GST penalty without intent to evade tax: GSTAT. *  Used railway rails can’t be taxed as track material without proof they are fit for reuse: CESTAT. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand on different issue: Delhi High Court. *  ITC dispute involves no question of law: GSTAT directs appeal to Vice-President. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand On different issue: Delhi High Court. *  No E-way bill required for interstate goods movement in november 2017: GSTAT quashes detention and penalty.  

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