Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *   CBIC issues draft rules for Customs valuation *  Top Headlines: Threshold for Benami deals, green bond investors, and more *  Govt aims 1-hour clearance for goods at all ports *  Exporters Allowed To Use RoDTEP, RoSCTL Scrips To Pay Customs Duty, Transfer Them; Rules Amended *  Millions of labourers to be affected by brick producers’ strike over hike in GST, coal rates *  Inauguration of ‘kendriya GST parisar’ *  Transporter can seek Release of Conveyance alone, not Goods under GST Act: Madras HC *  GST: Quoting of DIN Mandatory for Responding to Notice, Govt Modifies Portal *  Firms can soon file claims for GST credits of ?400 cr *  CBIC issues modalities for filing transitional credit under GST. *  Mumbai: Man creates 36 fake GST firms, arrested for input tax credit fraud of Rs 23 cr *  Report to restructure Commerce Ministry under study; idea is to set up trade promotion body: Goyal *  Firms can soon file claims for GST credits of ?400 cr *  Gambling Alert! Govt May Levy Up To 28% GST; UP, Bengal Back Move *  EPFO backs raising retirement age to ease pressure on pension funds *  India Moving Up Power Scale, Set to Become Third Largest Economy By 2030 *  Airfares Get Expensive: What Changes for Flyers From Today? *  IRCTC Latest News: Passengers to Pay More For Cancelling Confirmed Rail Tickets Soon. *  IBC prevails over Customs Act, says Supreme Court. *  As GST enters sixth year, a time for evaluation and reassessment *  There’s GST on daily essentials as Centre needs money to buy MLAs: Arvind Kejriwal *  Now, GST on cancellation of confirmed train tickets, hotel bookings *  GST kitty for top States could rise 20% in FY23, says Crisil *  French customs officials seize another cargo vessel over Russia sanctions *  TradeLens builds on Asia momentum with Pakistan Customs deal *  Hike tax on tobacco, reduce affordability & increase revenue: Civil society organizations to GST council *  Bihar: ?10 crore tax evasion on tobacco products detected in raids *  Centre failed on GST, COVID; would it be anti-national? Rajan on Infosys row *  Service Tax not Chargeable on Income Tax TDS portion paid by recipient: CESTAT grants relief to TVS *  Foreign portfolio investors make net investment of Rs 7575cr in Sep so far
Subject News *  Run-up to Budget: Monetary threshold for GST offences may rise to Rs 25 cr *   GST (Tax) E-invoice Must For Businesses With Over Rs 5 Crore Annual Turnover *   Both Central GST and excise duty can be imposed on tobacco, rules Karnataka high court *   CBIC Issues Clarification On Extended Timelines For GST Compliance *   CBIC Issues Clarification On Extended Timelines For GST Compliance *  Budget 2023- 9.6 crore gas connections *  GST: Tamil Nadu Issues Instructions for Assessment and Adjudication Proceedings *  GST: CBIC Extends Last Date for filing of ITC *  GST collection in September surpasses Rs 1.4 lakh crore for straight seventh time *  Dollar smuggling case: Customs chargesheet names M Sivasankar as key conspirator. *  Hike in GST rates fuels inflation *  Assam: CBI arrests GST commissioner in Guwahati *  GST fraud worth ?824cr by 15 insurance Cos detected *  India proposes 15% customs duties on 22 items imported from UK *  Decriminalising certain offences under GST on cards *  Surge in GST collections more due to higher inflation: India Ratings *  MNRE Notifies BCD and Hike in GST Rates as ‘Change in Law’ Events But With a Condition | Mercom India *   Solar projects awarded before customs duty change allowed cost pass-through *  Rajasthan High Court Dismisses Writ Petitions Challenging Levy Of GST On Royalty *   GST revenue in September likely at Rs 1.45 lakh crore *  Govt working on decriminalising certain offences under GST, lower compounding charge *  Building an institution like GST Council takes time, trashing is easy: Sitharaman *  GST collections in Sept may touch ?1.5 lakh crore *  KTR asks Centre to withdraw GST on handlooms *  After Gameskraft, More Online Gaming Startups To Receive GST Tax Claims *  Madras HC: AAR Application Filed Under VAT Does Not Survive After GST Enactment *  Threshold for criminal offences under GST law may be raised *  Bengaluru: Gaming company faces biggest GST notice of Rs 21,000 crore *  CBIC clarifies Classification of Cranes for GST, Customs Duty *  Customs seize gold hidden in bicycle in Kerala airport  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ-Case law-2013/14-1600

Will sale of undivided share in land and the construction of flats for individual buyers come within the ambit of service tax?

Case:-  COTTON CITY DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMR. OF C.EX. (S.T.), COIMBATORE

Citation:-2013(29) S.T.R. 396(Tri.- Chennai)

Brief Facts:-The Appellants are engaged in construction of Industrial and Commercial Buildings as also Residential Com­plexes. The appellants were registered with service tax department for providing such services and were paying service tax. On scrutiny of the S.T.-3 returns filed by the appellants the Revenue noticed that they had stopped paying service tax from October 2006 onwards. But it was noticed by Revenue that the appellants were executing two residential complexes namely Manchester Grand and Man­chester Albatross. Since Revenue was of the view that the appellants should have paid service tax in respect of activities carried out by them in respect of the said two projects, proceedings were initiated for recovery of such tax by issuing show cause dated 17-8-2009. After due proceedings, a demand of Rs. 1,48,I7,194/- is confirmed against them along with interest and penalties for the period July 2006 to September 2009. Aggrieved by the order the Appellants have filed this appeal before the Tribunal along with a stay petition for waiver of pre-deposit of dues arising from the impugned order. The demand confirmed for this project is Rs. 1,44,63,900/-.

Appellant Contentions:-The Counsel for Appellants submits that the project Manchester Grand comprising of 108 residential units was constructed on a piece of land be­longing to them. They got the flats constructed by engaging a contractor namely, M/s. Cotton City Constructions P. Ltd. The contractor had paid service tax of Rs. 1,80,00,000/- for the construction services rendered by them to the appellant. The appellant has only sold the Undivided Share (UDS) in land and also con­structed flats to individual buyers. It is their argument that they have not pro­vided any construction service to the individual buyers and hence they have not paid service tax on the project.
The Counsel for appellants rely on Circular F. No. 332/35/2006- TRU, dated 1-8-2006 item No. 1 in support of their contention. This is reproduced below :
"I have been directed to state the following relating to levy of service tax on "construction of complex" service falling under Section 65(105)(zzzh) and "commercial or industrial construction" service falling under Section 65(105) (zzq) of the Finance Act, 1994:
 

Issue Legal Position
Is service tax applicable on Builder, Promoter or Developer who builds a Residential complex with the services of his            own      staff            and employing direct labour or petty labour contractors whose total bill does not increase 4.0 lakhs in one P/Y? In a case where the builder, promoter Or developer builds a residential complex, having more than 12 residential units, by engaging a contractor for construction of such residential complex, the contractor shall be liable to pay service tax on the gross amount charged for the construction services provided, to the builder/promoter/developer under 'construction of complex' service falling under Section 65(105) (zzzh) of the Finance Act, 1994
If no other person is engaged for construction work and the builder/promoter/developer undertakes construction work on his own without engaging the services of any other person, then in such cases there is absence of service provider and service recipient.

 
 
The Counsel also argues that if it is considered that the appellants were providing any service then it is to individual flat owners. If that be so it should be considered that the individual flat owners have engaged the appel­lants to get their flats constructed. Then the activity falls within the exclusion of the definition of residential complex as given at Section 65(19) which is repro­duced below :
"(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;"
 
The Counsel also argues that since the contractor has already paid taxes, demanding tax from them again amounts to double taxation of the same activity.There are other issues raised by the appellants. They contend that there can be no levy of service tax under the entry Section 65(105)(zzzh) because a new entry has been introduced with effect from 1-6-2007 under section 65(105)(zzzza). They also say that the entire facts were in the knowledge of the department and extended period of time cannot be invoked. They also rely on the stay order granted by CESTAT, Bangalore in the case of Mohitasham Com­plexes (P) Ltd v. CCE - 2011 (21) S.T.R. 551 (Tri.-Bang.). These issues were not ar­gued at length because most of it has been considered by this Tribunal in the case of LCS Citymakers (P) Limited - 2012-TIOL-618-CESTAT-MAD.
 
Respondent Contentions:- The arguments of Revenue in the matter are that the sale deed for the sale of UDS of Land is first registered in the name of the individual buyers. Therefore the claim of the appellants that they were constructing a building in their own land is not correct. The construction activity took place on the land belonging to the individual customers and the submission of the appellant is not factually correct.
 
Revenue also argues that the clarification issued in Circular dated 1-8-2006 relied upon by the appellant is on the issue listed for clarification. The issue as may be seen from column (2) of the table in the circular was whether service tax applicable on Builder, Promoter or Developer who builds a residen­tial complex with the services of his own staff and employing direct labour or petty labour contractors whose total bill does not increase 4.0 lakhs in one Previ­ous Year. That is not the issue in this case. The clarification issued [column (3) of the said Table] is about the liability of a builder/promoter/developer who un­dertakes construction work on his own land for sale of built up flats. This is also not the case under consideration.
In the context of the argument regarding double taxation, once in the hands of the contractor and then in the hands of the builder/promoter Reve­nue relies on the decision of the Advance Ruling Authority in the case of M/s. Harekrishna Developers - 2008 (10) S.T.R. 357 (A.A.R.) and argues that the fact that the contractor was paying tax does not extinguish taxability of the service pro­vided by the appellant.

The Revenue also argues that the exclusion in Section 65(91a) will apply only in a case where the complex as a whole is for the residential purpose of the person getting it constructed. In this case the individual is getting his resi­dential unit constructed but the individuals are not getting the residential com­plex constructed and therefore the exclusion will not apply.
Revenue also points out that the decision in the case of Mohitasham Complexes (P) Ltd. is at stay stage. From the order it cannot be found to be a case where 'UDS in land was first sold and then construction was undertaken whereas in this case UDS in land is first sold and then construction done.

Reasoning of Judgment:- We have considered the submission from both parties and perused their record and we examined the case of the project Manchester Albatross. We have considered arguments on both sides. We note that the tax­ing entry reads as under:
(105) "taxable service" means any service provided or to be provided,
(a)
(zzzh) to any person, by any other person, in relation to construction of complex.
 
This entry will cover not just the activity of construction but all other activities in relation to construction of the complex. The actual construction activity is undertaken by the contractor for which he is liable to pay tax. Such activity is only an input service for providing services rendered by the appellants to the individual buyers of UDS in land, for constructing the flats. So prima facie liability arises in the hands of the appellants. But the appellants will be eligible for Cenvat credit on services provided by the contractor to the appellants if such services were billed to the appellants and paid for by them. But no clear facts on this count are coming out either from the Show Cause Notice, Adjudication Or­der or the pleadings. Though there is mention of payment of service tax of Rs. 1.8 crores by the contractor it is not made clear how the amount is quantified and shown to be relatable to services availed by the appellant in relation to service provided by him for which the impugned demand is confirmed. If the tax paid corresponds to the same service and amounts billed to the individual customers then the tax paid by sub-contractor cannot be more than the demand on the pro­vider of service itself as it comes out from the facts of the case.
 
In the case of Manchester Albatross project they submit that this is a joint venture for construction of 27 Golf Villas with common facilities. The Appellants submits that in this case they were only a developer for identifying land and prospective buyers for the villas. The construction work was done by a contractor who paid tax on their services. Since the tax demand involved is only Rs. 3,53,294/- in this case we do not find it necessary to examine the issues raised in this case in detail at his prima facie stage.

We note that the appellant has been paying tax on such projects up to a time and then stopped furnishing information to the Department and paying tax without any intimation to the Department on the basis of their own interpre­tation of a Circular issued by CBE & C answering a different issue. In such a situation we do not prima facie agree with the argument that demand is time- barred.

In view of our prima facie analysis of the contentions on either side as explained above we do not consider this case to be one where pre-deposit should be waived. Considering that there are some arguable issues and some facts like the relevance of payments of service tax made by the contractor need to be verified we order the applicants to make a pre-deposit of Rs. 50 lakhs within 8 weeks from the date of order and report compliance on 11-10-2012.

Subject to such pre-deposit of balance dues arising from the im­pugned order is waived and its collection stayed during the pendency of appeal.
 
Decision:-Part Stay granted.

 Comment:- The pre deposit was ordered based on the contention that payment of service tax by the contractor still needed to be verified and also other facts and arguable issues needed to be looked into in detail.

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