Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + SC Service Tax - 2013 (2) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (2) TMI 298 - SUPREME COURTHousing construction and building activities carried on by a private or statutory body - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - whether such activity tantamounts to service within the meaning of clause (o) of Section 2(1) of the Act - Held that:- As decided in Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta [1994 (11) TMI 364 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] as relied upon by High Court the activities of the appellant-company in the present case involving offer of plots for sale to its customers/members with an assurance of development of infrastructure/amenities, lay-out approvals etc. was a 'service' as when a person applies for allotment of building site or for a flat constructed by development authority and enters into an agreement with the developer or a contractor, the nature of the transaction is covered by the expression 'service' of any description. The housing construction or building activity carried on by a private or statutory body was, therefore, held to be 'service' within the meaning of clause (o) of Section 2(1) of the Act as it stood prior to the inclusion of the expression 'housing construction' in the definition of 'service' by Ordinance No.24 of 1993. Having regard to the nature of the transaction between the appellant-company and its customers which involved much more than a simple transfer of a piece of immovable property it is clear that the same constituted 'service' within the meaning of the Act. It was not a case where the appellant-company was selling the given property with all advantages and/or disadvantages on "as is where is" basis, as was the position in U.T. Chandigarh Administration v. Amarjeet Singh [2009 (3) TMI 862 - SUPREME COURT]. It is a case where a clear cut assurance was made to the purchasers as to the nature and the extent of development that would be carried out by the appellant- company as a part of the package under which sale of fully developed plots with assured facilities was to be made in favour of the purchasers for valuable consideration. To the extent the transfer of the site with developments in the manner and to the extent indicated earlier was a part of the transaction, the appellant-company had indeed undertaken to provide a service. Any deficiency or defect in such service would make it accountable before the competent consumer forum at the instance of consumers like the respondents - against service provider.
|