TMI Blog2008 (11) TMI 588X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sit the following amounts : (i) Service Tax due for the years 2003-04, 2004-05 for construction activity amounting to Rs. 58,79,294/- on denial of Notification No. 12/2003-ST, dated 20-6-2003. (ii) Penalty of Rs. 200/- for everyday failure to pay the Service Tax has been imposed under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. (iii) Penalty of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. (iv) Equal penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. (v) Interest has also been demanded under Section 75. 2. The following issues are involved : (i) Amounts due for the years 2003-04, 2004-05 on account of construction activity. (ii) Demand of Service Tax on account of enhancement of the value taking into consideration the acco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... truction work, which is sold by the petitioner-company to the buyers, who may have made agreements for sale before the construction had actually started or during the progress of the construction activity or at the end or completion of the construction activity. Any advance, made by a prospective buyer, or deposit received by the petitioner-company, is against consideration of sale of the flat/building to such prospective buyer and not for the purpose of obtaining service from the petitioner-company. (ii) Assotech Realty Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P - 2007 (7) S.T.R. 129 (All.). 4. The learned Special Counsel for the revenue stated that the decision in the case of Magus Construction Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is not fully applicable to the facts of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... equested by the appellants. 5. On a very careful consideration of the issue, we find that at this stage, we cannot give a definite opinion with regard to the merits of the case. Even the information on the break-up of the value relating to commercial complexes and residential complexes are not available. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the appellant should be put to terms. However, taking into consideration the decision of the Hon ble High Court in the case of Magus Construction Pvt. Ltd. (supra), we are of the view that the appellant should pre-deposit a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh Only) within a period of three months from the date of issue of this order. On such deposits, the balance amount of Service Tax/Pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
