Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2019 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (10) TMI 1258 - AT - Service TaxWorks Contract - Non-payment of service tax - suppression of value of taxable services - applicability of extended period of limitation provided for under the proviso to section 73(1) of the Act - whether the amount received by the Appellant for construction of the houses for the Rajasthan Housing Board would attract payment of Service Tax under category of Works Contract? - HELD THAT:- The definition of a residential complex” leaves no manner of doubt that it would be a complex comprising of a building or buildings, having more than twelve residential units. In other words a complex may have a building having more than twelve residential units or a complex may have more than one building each having more than twelve residential units. Independent buildings having twelve or less than twelve residential units would not be covered by the definition of residential complex”. It needs to be noticed that the Bench also examined whether construction of a new residential complex or a part thereof would be covered within the meaning of a works contract, after 1 June, 2007 and held that in this case also the definition of a new residential complex” given in section 65(91a) of the Act was required to be looked - The Commissioner has, however, without examining this aspect has made a general statement that it is a common knowledge that the Rajasthan Housing Board constructs large residential complexes comprising more than twelve residential units over a well delineated area having common facilities. The photographs enclosed with the Appeal clearly demonstrate that the houses that have been constructed by the Rajasthan Housing Board are either single storey or double stories with separate entry. The confirmation of demand for construction of ADR Centre, library building, canals for irrigation and wooden flooring at the stadium undertaken by the Awas Vikas Parsihad under works contract cannot also be sustained. Though the impugned order does not specify whether the activity would be covered by (b) or (c) or (d) since all that has been stated is that the works carried out by the Appellant would be covered under (b) to (d), but unless the Department is able to establish that the construction was for the purpose of commerce and industry, Service Tax could not have been levied under works contract - The confirmation of demand under this head for the aforesaid three construction activity cannot also be confirmed. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|