Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2020 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (3) TMI 635 - AT - Service TaxConstruction of Complex Services - work undertaken by the appellant for the Bhopal Development Authority for construction of Inter State Bus Terminus platform - GTA Services - demand of service tax - HELD THAT:- The work order was only for construction of bus terminus platform at ISBT including building works, water supply, sanitary work and internal electrification works and not for any other construction. This is clear from the work order - demand do not sustain. Construction of individual duplex under Vedavati Avasiya Yojana, Amravat Khurd for the Bhopal Development Authority under “construction of complex” - 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” - In the present case, the appellant had constructed independent buildings having one residential unit only. Thus, even if the appellant had constructed more than 12 independent buildings, the nature of activity would not be “construction of complex” and, therefore, the service tax could be levied. In this connection reliance can be placed on a Division Bench judgment of the Principal Bench of the Tribunal in MACRO MARVEL PROJECTS LTD. VERSUS COMMR. OF SERVICE TAX, CHENNAI [2008 (9) TMI 80 - CESTAT, CHENNAI] wherein the demand of Service Tax was for the period 16 June, 2005 to November, 2005 under “construction of complex” service under section 65(30a) of the Act. Thus, the levy of service tax on the appellant under ‘construction of complex service’ is not justified and, cannot be sustained. GTA Services - HELD THAT:- Though it is a fact that the appellant had not produced these receipts before the Principal Commissioner in response to the show cause notice but the meager amount paid by the appellant for this activity during this period persuades us to remand the matter to the Principal Commissioner for examining this aspect after providing an opportunity to the appellant to submit the relevant documents within six weeks from the date of order - matter on remand. Appeal allowed in part and part matter on remand.
|