Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2024 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (3) TMI 282 - CESTAT NEW DELHIFalse declaration under Service Tax Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme of 2013 - appellant is involved in the construction activities and has declared their tax dues by wrongly availing the abatement on the value of construction work and on the advance money received for flat booking respectively - Non-inclusion of amount of liability under reverse charge mechanism for obtaining legal consultancy and with respect to the remunerations paid to their Director - failure to mention income with the service tax liability of Rs.2,28,08,414/- for the period from April, 2011 to December, 2012 - recovery alongwith interest and penalties. Demand of service tax for constructing educational institutes - HELD THAT:- For any organisation or institutions to qualify as having been established solely for educational, religious, charitable, help, sanitation or philanthropic purposes, for non-commercial status, it is required that same fulfils the condition of being run without any profit making. None of the educational Institutes were observed to have a non-commercial status. There are no reason to differ from these findings because there is no denial apparent on record that the educational institutions for whom appellant constructed the complex, were charging fees from the students. None of these educational Institutes are Government owned institutes. Also there is no evidence to prove that despite collection of fee, there was no profit to these institutes and that these educational institutes were non-profit driven. Hence the demand of service tax pertaining to construction of educational institute activity confirmed. Demand with respect to construction of residential complexes - HELD THAT:- There is nothing in agreement to suggest that these houses were the part and parcel of the same complex. Hence there is no evidence produced by the Department that these 18 agreements were 18 different residential units (more than 12 units) in a common area with several common facilities, as is the requirement in terms of section 65(91a) of Finance Act, 1994 which defines the residential complex. Once the construction does not qualify to be called as a residential complex, question of any services rendered for constructing the same to be taxable does not at all arises. Hence, the findings of the adjudicating authority below confirming the demand alleging the construction of individual house as a taxable service, service of construction of Residential Complex are liable to be set aside. Value of service tax which has been alleged to have been concealed in the VCES by the appellant that is with respect to remuneration paid to the Directors and with respect to the amounts spent for legal and professional consultancy - HELD THAT:- Director remuneration refers to the compensation which a company gives to its Directors for the services rendered by him either in the form of fees, salary or by use of company’s assets. But the mere fact of payment of remuneration is not sufficient to hold that there exists an employer employee relationship between the company and the Director in which situation only the remuneration paid could have been taxable. The Revenue has not produced any evidence that on the amount of remuneration TDS in terms of section 192 of Income Tax Act was ever deducted. Hence, there arises no Service Tax liability qua the amount of said remuneration. Order under challenge is liable to be set aside qua this demand - the value for legal and professional services the same is very much taxable, as it qualifies to be called as service for post negative list period it is not covered under the exclusion clause of section 66 D of Finance Act. Hence, there are no infirmity while the demand on this count, has been confirmed. Appeal allowed in part.
|