Mehta & Modi Homes Versus CCT, Secunderabad – GST
Service Tax
2019 (2) TMI 476 – CESTAT HYDERABAD – TMI
CESTAT HYDERABAD – AT
Dated:- 19-12-2018
Appeal No. ST\/26234\/2013 – A\/31630\/2018
Service Tax
Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) And Mr. P. Venkata Subba Rao, Member (Technical)
\nShri Sunil Galawala, Shri V.S. Sudhir & Shri Venkata Prasad, Representatives (CA) for the Appellant.
\nShri Arun Kumar, Dy. Commissioner\/AR for the Respondent.
\nORDER
\nPer: P.V. Subba Rao.
\n1. This appeal has been filed against Order-in-Original No. 07\/2013-Adjn (ST) (Commr) dated 17.01.2013.
\n2. The appellant is registered with the service tax department under the category of 'works contract service' and is engaged in the sale of residential bungalows to prospective buyers while the units are under construction. Relying on some CBEC clarifications, the appellant discontinued payment of service tax and had undertaken residential project namely 'silver oak bungalows' in Cherlapally V<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n omplex” means any complex comprising of – = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ve considered both sides and it is evident from the record that the relevant period was April, 2008 to September, 2008 which is prior to 01.07.2010 and the service provided was construction of residential complex by the builder which, as clarified by the CBEC in their circular dated 10.02.2012 (supra) was not taxable during the relevant period. This position was also held in the orders of the Tribunal in the case of Krishna Homes (supra), UB Constructions (supra) and Vinayaka Homes (supra). Thus, we find that the legal position is settled and the appellant was not required to pay service tax on the services allegedly rendered by them during the relevant period. Consequently the interest and penalty are also liable to be set aside. We, therefore, find that the appeal is liable to be allowed and we do so. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Mehta & Modi Homes Versus CCT, Secunderabad – GSTService Tax2019 (2) TMI 476 – CESTAT HYDERABAD – TMICESTAT HYDERABAD – ATDated:- 19-12-2018Appeal No. ST\/26234\/2013 – A\/31630\/2018Service TaxMr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) And Mr. P. Venkata Subba Rao, Member (Technical) Shri Sunil Galawala, Shri V.S. Sudhir & Shri Venkata Prasad, Representatives (CA) for the Appellant. Shri … Continue reading “Mehta & Modi Homes Versus CCT, Secunderabad – GST”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-16687","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16687","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=16687"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16687\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=16687"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=16687"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=16687"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n (i) a building or buildings, having more than twelve residential units;
\n (ii) a common area; and
\n (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.”
\nIt is the contention of the appellant that not one building of their entire complex has more than 12 units and therefore, they are not covered by Sec.65(91a) and cannot be charged to service tax. They relied on the case laws of Marco Marvel Projects Ltd [2012 (25) STR J154 (SC)] and Baba Constructions Pvt Ltd [2018 (15) GSTL J120 (SC)]<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n11. The appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any.”
\n6. As this Bench has decided the matter in favour of the assessee, we find no reason to deviate from our decision. Acco<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n