TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 386X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e payments to BWSSB etc. as well as the payments by the buyer were made during the construction period. Therefore it is difficult to accept the view that it is not part of the construction cost. Once it is part of the construction cost, it becomes liable to tax. Therefore prima facie we do not find any merit in the appellant’s case. Extended period of limitation - Held that:- extended period cannot be applied and further prior to 01.07.2010, tax could not have been demanded. This is because the amendment to the definition which resulted in transaction within the individual buyer/builder/developer also becomes liable to service tax only after 01.07.2010. Further we also consider that the issue is a debatable one and subject to different i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llected by the appellant towards other charges forms a part of the construction cost and are liable to be included in the taxable value of Construction of Complex Service under Section 65(105) (zzzh) of the Act. - The date of completion of the construction as per construction agreements was the date certified by the Architect that the apartment was ready for occupation and the date of obtaining the power supply, provision for water supply, installation of STP/WTP, Fire inspection and lifts. Therefore provision of power supply and water supply are not post the completion of construction activity. - Since the appellants are unable to furnish month-wise data, the amount should be treated as collected on the first day of the respective ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . - Functions of an executor of the property cannot come under the purview of service tax under Construction of Complex Service. Reliance is placed prima facie view taken in Hiranandani Constructions Vs. CCE, Thane 2013-TIOL-1051-CESTAT-MUM Raheja Universal (P) Ltd. V. CST, Mumbai I 2013-TIOL-1357-CESTAT-MUM. - Assuming, even if the amounts collected from the buyers under other charges is more than the amount spent for obtaining such connections, service tax cannot be levied even on such difference as basic amount itself is not taxable. The principle enunciated in Baroda Electric Meters Ltd. V. CCE, 1997 (94) ELT 13 SC is relied upon. - The agreements show the construction cost separately. Therefore other charges collect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ected on actual basis, it cannot be said that it is not part of the construction activity. Moreover provision of electricity, water and advocate fee for verifying documents etc are essential requirements to be fulfilled before the building is handed over. It was also agreed that such payments were made to BWSSB, KEB etc. before the occupancy certificate was issued. The payments to BWSSB etc. as well as the payments by the buyer were made during the construction period. Therefore it is difficult to accept the view that it is not part of the construction cost. Once it is part of the construction cost, it becomes liable to tax. Therefore prima facie we do not find any merit in the appellant s case. 6. However we find merit in the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
