Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2019 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 1914 - AT - Service TaxClassification of services - Works contract - Composite contract services - activity of civil construction which included supply of material and labour both - C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 98/1/2008-S.T., dated 4-1-2008 - HELD THAT:- This issue stands decided in favour of the appellant-assessee by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Central Excise v. Larsen &Toubro [2015 (8) TMI 749 - SUPREME COURT] where Hon’ble Supreme Court have held that wherever a composite contract includes supply of material the same has necessarily to be classified under the works contract - demand of ₹ 49,70,66,826/- is set aside. Demand of service tax - construction of complex services - activity of construction of flats for Delhi Development Authority under the LIG category - period 2007-08 to 2008-09 - HELD THAT:- As clarified by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS VERSUS M/S LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD. AND OTHERS [2015 (8) TMI 749 - SUPREME COURT], this activity also is required to be classified under works contract service. Same view also has been taken in the case of SURESH KUMAR BANSAL & ANUJ GOYAL & ORS. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [2016 (6) TMI 192 - DELHI HIGH COURT] wherein it was held, the activity of construction of flats by a builder for buyer is not taxable under construction of complex service, and is essentially a works contract - the demand raised is not sustainable, as work includes supply of materials being a composite contract - demand set aside. Revenue demanded service tax on the outstanding receivable by the assessee from their associated enterprise, as on 10-5-2008 - HELD THAT:- The said issue is settled in favour of the appellant by coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in M/S. SIFY TECHNOLOGIES LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX, LTU CHENNAI [2015 (3) TMI 964 - CESTAT CHENNAI] wherein it has been held that any amendment which increases the tax liability of assessee is necessarily prospective in nature and cannot be applied retrospectively unless the amending Act or notification specifically provides so. Appeal allowed.
|