2018 (11) TMI 1152 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI – Construction services – appellants provided construction activities to land owners in lieu of relinquishment of their right over the UDS in land as per the agreement – liability of service tax – Held that:- The period involved in the present case is from October 2004 to March 2009. The demand has been raised in the show cause notice under construction of residential complex services. The contracts entered between the appellant and the service recipient is a composite contract which involves both supply of materials as well as rendering of service.
–
The Tribunal in the case of Real Value Promoters Ltd. [2018 (9) TMI 1149 – CESTAT CHENNAI] had occasion to analyse the issue regarding demand of service tax under construction of residential complex services, commercial or industrial construction service and construction of complex service. The Tribunal has held that prior to 1.6.2007, levy of service tax can be under the above categories on
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
the appeals being the same they are heard together and are disposed by this common order. 2. On intelligence that appellants are not paying service tax on construction services provided by them, the Survey, Intelligence and Research Wing of Service Tax Commissionerate, Chennai took up investigation. It was noticed that the appellant undertook following projects subject to the date of levy of service tax on construction activities:- S. No. Project Name Category of Service 1. Meadows – Nolambur Residential complex / joint venture 2. Pacifica Tech Park Commerical complex / joint venture 3. Blessings, Kelambakkam Residential complex 2.1 On scrutiny of records, it came to be noticed that the projects were joint venture nature and the appellants provided construction activities to land owners in lieu of relinquishment of their right over the UDS in land as per the agreement. It appeared from the nature of terms of the agreement that the appellant and the land owner are service provider and
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
involved is ₹ 18,92,79,888/- along with interest and penalties. He submitted that the appellant had entered into agreement for the construction of residential complex as a joint venture project with the owners of the land in lieu of their relinquishment of their UDS of the land in favour of the appellant. It was agreed to handover 42% of the constructed area as landowner share in lieu of relinquishment of their right over UDS inland. The appellant retained 58% of the constructed area and sold to individual buyers. The appellant discharged service tax on the land value collected at ₹ 300/- per sq. ft. for this 58% of the land which was sold to individual buyers. The case of the department is that appellants are to discharge service tax on the entire value of 58% on the basis of sale price of 42% of the flat sold to the individual buyers. He submitted that since the landowners have relinquished their right over 58% for which consideration was received from the individual fla
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
to March 2009. The demand has been raised in the show cause notice under construction of residential complex services. The contracts entered between the appellant and the service recipient is a composite contract which involves both supply of materials as well as rendering of service. The Tribunal in the case of Real Value Promoters Ltd. (supra) had occasion to analyse the issue regarding demand of service tax under construction of residential complex services, commercial or industrial construction service and construction of complex service. The Tribunal has held that prior to 1.6.2007, levy of service tax can be under the above categories only for contracts which are purely for services. That after 1.6.2007, the above categories would be applicable only if the contracts are purely services and which are not composite contracts. Further, it was held that after 1.6.2007, demand in respect of composite contracts would fall under works contract service only. The relevant portion of the
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
e issue was analyzed by the Hon ble Apex Court in Larsen & Toubro case (supra) and held that there can be no levy of service tax on composite contracts (involving both service and supply of goods) prior to 1.6.2007. This read together with the budget speech as above would lead to the strong conclusion that composite contracts were brought within the ambit of levy of service tax only with effect from 1.6.2007 by introduction of Section 65(105)(zzzza) i.e. Works Contract Services. As pointed out by the ld. counsels for appellants, there is no change in the definition of CICS/CCS/RCS after 1.6.2007. Therefore only those contracts which were service simpliciter (not involving supply of goods) would be subject to levy of service tax under CICS / CCS / RCS prior to 1.6.2007 and after. Our view is supported by the fact that the method / scheme for discharging service tax on the service portion of composite contract was introduced only in 2007. 7.11 The ld. AR Shri A. Cletus has tried to c
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
art of the service was classified under the respective taxable service prior to 1-6-2007. This is because works contract describes the nature of the activity more specifically and, therefore, as per the provisions of Section 65A of the Finance Act, 1994, it would be the appropriate classification for the part of the service provided after that date. 7.12 Thus, for example, while construction of a new residential complex as a service simpliciter would find a place under section 65(105)(30b) of the Act, the same activity as a composite works contract will require to be brought under section 65(105)(zzzza) Explanation (c). For both these categories for the definition of residential complex, the definition given in section 65(105)(91a) will have to be adopted as discussed above will have to be taken into account. 7.13 We find sustenance in arriving at this conclusion by a number of decisions of the Tribunal in which it has held as under:- a. In the case of Commissioner, Service Tax, New De
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
der tax entry Section 65(105) (xxq). The grievance of the Revenue is with reference to commercial nature of the construction undertaken by the respondent and not on the correct classification of taxable activity. b. In the case of Skyway Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai – 2018-TIOL-360-CESTAT-MUM, in respect of identical issue for the period from 2005 to 2012, the Tribunal in para 7 has held as under:- 7. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both the sides, we find that the issue falls for consideration is whether the services rendered by the appellant in respect of 52 contracts entered with various Govt. authorities need to be taxed under MMRC/CICS/ECIS or otherwise. It is on record and undisputed that the adjudicating authority has specifically held that all the 52 contracts which has been executed by the appellants are with material. Learned Counsel was correct in bringing to our notice that the said findings of the adjudicating authori
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
– 2017 (50) STR 147, the Tribunal in paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 has held as under:- 9. The Hon ble Supreme Court in re Larsen & Toubro & Ors. has decided thus 24. A close look at the Finance Act, 1994 would show that the five taxable services referred to in the charging Section 65(105) would refer only to service contracts simpliciter and not to composite works contracts. This is clear from the very language of Section 65(105) which defines taxable service as any service provided . All the services referred to in the said sub-clauses are service contracts simpliciter without any other element in them, such as for example, a service contract which is a commissioning and installation, or erection, commissioning and installation contract. Further, under Section 67, as has been pointed out above, the value of a taxable service is the gross amount charged by the service provider for such service rendered by him. This would unmistakably show that what is referred to in the charging prov
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
act service had been rejected by the adjudicating authority. Therefore, even as the services rendered by them are taxable for the period from 1st June, 2007 to 30th September, 2008 the narrow confines of the show cause notices do not permit confirmation of demand of tax on any service other than commercial or industrial construction service . It is already established in the aforesaid judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court that the entry under Section 65(105)(zzd) is liable to be invoked only for construction simpliciter. Therefore, there is no scope for vivisection to isolate the service component of the contract. d. In the case of Logos Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise as reported in 2018 (6) TMI 1361, the Tribunal has held as under:- 5.1 The payment upto 01.06.2007 will get extinguished on account of the law that has been laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Larsen & Toubro Ltd., (supra), relied upon by the Ld. Counsel. So ordered. 5.2 The Ld. Couns
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
fore an amount of ₹ 36,88,611/- demanded in the impugned order should be considered as having been discharged. We find merit in his argument and hence the demand of ₹ 26,88,611/- under works contract service for the period 01.04.2008 to 30.09.2008 is required to be considered as having been paid, albeit subsequent to the visit of the officers. However, the interest liability if any that arise on this amount if not paid already will have to be discharged by the appellants. So ordered. 8. In the light of the discussions, findings and conclusions above and in particular, relying on the ratios of the case laws cited supra, we hold as under:- a. The services provided by the appellant in respect of the projects executed by them for the period prior to 1.6.2007 being in the nature of composite works contract cannot be brought within the fold of commercial or industrial construction service or construction of complex service in the light of the Hon ble Supreme Court judgment in Lar
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =