2018 (7) TMI 1389 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI – Works contract – Commercial or Industrial Construction Service – demand of service tax on two on-going projects which had been carried out from the period July 2006 to September 2009 – Held that:- Part of the demand would fall prior to 1.6.207 being works contract service and hit by the decision in the case of Larsen & Toubro [2015 (8) TMI 749 – SUPREME COURT].
–
Demand of service tax – sub-contractor – The demand is made against the appellant merely alleging that he is the main contractor and although the contractor has discharged the service tax, it is only the sub-contractor and therefore the appellant is liable to pay service tax – Held that:- There is no merit in this allegation of the department – The construction services had already suffered service tax as the contractor who is engaged in the construction of building/complex has discharged service tax. Further, the circular also makes it clear that when a contractor is engaged in
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Commercial or Industrial Construction Service and the construction of residential complex service, they stopped paying service tax from October 2006 onwards. They had thus not paid service tax in respect of two on-going projects which were Manchester Grand and Manchester Albatross comprising flats and independent bungalows. After investigation, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant proposing to demand service tax for the period from July 2006 to September 2009 under construction of residential complex in respect of these residential complexes. After due process of law, the adjudicating authority confirmed an amount of ₹ 1,48,17,194/- along with interest and also imposed equal penalty under Section 78 of the Act. Hence this appeal. 2. On behalf of the appellant, Shri M. Karthikeyan, ld. Counsel submitted that part of the period involved is prior to 1.6.2007 and the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Kerala Vs. Larsen &am
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ry same construction activities of these two complexes, the demand cannot sustain. 3. The ld. AR Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy supported the findings in the impugned order. He referred to Circular No. 108/2/2009-ST dated 29.1.2009 and argued that the appellant though a developer / promoter is the main contractor of the building and the contractor who has carried out the construction activity is merely a sub-contractor. Being the main contractor, the appellant is liable to pay service tax. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The foremost issue that has to be looked into is that the demand of service tax on two on-going projects which had been carried out from the period July 2006 to September 2009. Part of the demand would fall prior to 1.6.207 being works contract service and hit by the decision in the case of Larsen & Toubro (supra). Needless to say that these construction services are composite service for the reason that the demand itself has been confirmed after granting 67% abatement as per t
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =