Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2018 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (12) TMI 1243 - CESTAT HYDERABADConstruction of complex services - Demand of ₹ 10,91,396/- on the amounts received over and above the sale deed value for rendering construction of complex services prior to 01.07.2010 - demand alongwith interest and penalties - Held that:- An identical issue has been decided by the Principal Bench in Delhi in the case of UB Constructions Pvt Ltd [2014 (1) TMI 402 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] held that amount received prior to 01.07.2010 over and above the sale deed cannot be taxed under construction of commercial complex services - demand set aside. Demand of ₹ 26,73,714/- for the period after 01.07.2010 on the amounts received over and above the sale deed - Held that:- The explanation clause included in the definition of construction of complex services will cover the said amount and appellant is liable to pay service tax. It is brought to notice that they had paid the entire service tax liability along with interest - since, the issue involved in this case was being litigated and appellant would have entertained a bonafide belief that tax liability need not be discharged, the provisions of Sec.73(3) could be made applicable to the situation in hand and penalties need to be set aside - demand set aside. Demand of ₹ 1,73,17,823/- - Held that:- The issue involved in this case is regarding the amounts notionally attributed as consideration to the area shared to the land owner for the construction undertaken on development basis - identical issue has been decided by this Bench in the case of Vasantha Green Projects and Om Sree Builders & Developers and others [2018 (5) TMI 889 - CESTAT HYDERABAD], where it was held that the amount attributable to the consideration received by appellant in the form of land rights from the land owner stands included in the value of villas sold to prospective customer which would mean that whatever consideration was received by the appellant in form of developmental right was considered in assessable value - demand set aside. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|