9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1002X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plex. They had constructed two residential complexes namely "SIS Danube" and "SIS Safaa" during the period from May, 2006 to June, 2010. Based on investigations conducted Revenue was of the view that they had not paid appropriate service tax on these projects. Two show cause notices were issued and adjudicated resulting in confirmation of service tax demand of amount of Rs. 1,59,83,866/- for the period May, 2006 to September, 2009 and Rs. 72,66,757/- for the period October, 2009 to June, 2009 along with interest and penalties. Aggrieved by the order appellants have filed these appeals before the Tribunal along with stay petitions which are being considered in this proceeding. 3. The applicant was initially paying service tax on these proje ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idential complex was undertaken on such property of which UDS was sold. It was also seen that there was no sale of constructed flats by the applicants or by land owner. Therefore, the Revenue was of the view that the clarification issued by the CBEC was not applicable and the applicants were just avoiding payment of tax on such construction activities undertaken by them. 5. Arguing the case of the applicants, the Ld. Advocate submits that the applicant constructed residential complexes on their land (this argument has applicability only in the case SIS Danube and not to SIS Safaa) and therefore, there was no relationship of service provider and service recipient in such cases and he relies on the Board's Circular No. 80/10/2004 dated 17.09 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e submits that the circulars issued by the CBEC are applicable only in cases where owner of the land constructs residential complex in his own land and thereafter sells the constructed flats. In such cases, sale of flats will be registered with the local authorities. In the instant case, there was registration only for sale of UDS of land and not for sale of constructed flats. Once, land is sold and thereafter construction is done on such land, there is a relationship of service provider and service recipient between the person constructing residential complex and the owners of UDS. Therefore, the demand of service tax on the applicant is correct in law. 7. The Ld. AR submits that the applicant stopped paying service tax and the department ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e terms to make pre-deposit for admission of their appeals. He points out that in similar cases, the Tribunal has been directed to pay 50% of the tax demanded from the applicants. 10. Considering the arguments on both sides. The arguments raised by the applicant including the decision of Hon Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s Sanghvi and Doshi Enterprises (supra) were considered by this Tribunal in the case of Jain Housing (Appeal No.448 to 450/2012 stay petition decided on 29-07-2013) and the Tribunal had called for appropriate pre-deposit in that case. The Tribunal has been consistently holding that where UDS is sold first and then construction is done for the land owners, there is a service involved whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
