TMI Blog2013 (3) TMI 225X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... D HARYANA HIGH COURT] is on the issue of constitutional validity of the explanation added by Finance Act, 2010. The decision does not examine the question whether the explanation has retrospective validity. This issue is examined in detail by the Tribunal in the case of Skynet Builders [2012 (4) TMI 427 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] - The Ld. A. R. for Revenue is not able to make any reason why the present ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce there is no time frame for filing written submissions, the COD application is infructuous and it is disposed of accordingly. 2. There is one appeal filed by a builder of residential complex and the other four appeals are filed by Revenue. 3. The Builders in these appeals were constructing Residential complexes as defined in section 65 (91a) of Finance Act, 1994. The Builders were construct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wholly or partly, by a builder or any person authorised by the builder before, during or after construction (except in cases for which no sum is received from or on behalf of the prospective buyer by the builder or a person authorised by the builder before the grant of completion certificate by the authority competent to issue such certificate under any law for the time being in force) shall be de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have retrospective effect because the explanation added creates tax liabilities for past periods against position clarified by CBEC itself. They rely on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Skynet Builders Developers Colonizers and Other in appeal no. 463/2008 and other appeals vide Final order No. ST/A/190-197/12 CUS 13-03-12. 7. The Ld. A. R. for Revenue submits that the High Court of P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
