9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 386X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 012) along with interest and penalties. The applicants are engaged in the business of construction of commercial and residential complexes. Show Cause Notice dated 24.6.2009 was issued proposing demand of service tax of Rs.2,84,19,044/- for the period April 2007 to March 2008 and confirmed revised demand of Rs.1,18,81,711/-. Show Cause Notice dated 23.10.2009 proposed demand of tax of Rs.5,91,38,314/- for the period 2008-09 and revised demand was confirmed to Rs.5,79,02,314/-. 3. The learned counsel submits that in Appeal No. ST/258/2012, the major amount of Rs.94,62,842/- involves on Thooraipakkam STP (Software Technology Park) project by adopting arbitrary valuation of cost of land. He submits that the land owners share of construction s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x on land owner share of construction of Rs.1,018/- per sq. ft. but the adjudicating authority adopted the value of Rs.2,300/- per sq. ft. without considering that they have handed over the flat at the shell stage and furnishing activities were not undertook by them. 6. Regarding the demand of tax of Rs.1,06,22,800/- relating to residential project work relating to Sriperumbudur services rendered to land owners, it is submitted that only an amount of Rs.50/- per sq. ft. should have adopted for demanding the service tax instead of the comparable realization adopted in the show-cause notice. 7. The learned AR reiterates the findings of the Commissioner. He submits that for each and every issue the Commissioner has given a detailed finding. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... required under Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006. The learned counsel submits that it is a large project and therefore, some of the documents had not been produced. He submits that it is revealed from the joint venture agreement that the applicant had delivered the land owner share and a shell share and the demand of tax on comparable price cannot be sustainable. We find that the applicant failed to produce the evidence in support of their contention and therefore prima facie the Commissioner is justified to proceed on the basis of comparable prices. Hence, the applicant failed to make out a prima facie case for waiver of the entire amount of tax along with interest and penalties. The applicant is directed to deposit Rs.75,0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
