TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 869X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the activity under consideration in this case is covered by the clarification taking a view that service tax is leviable. Therefore, we find that prima facie appellant has no merit - Prima facie amounts collected by the appellant for the services rendered are covered by the decisions cited in [2012 (6) TMI 636 - Jharkhand High Court ]. Therefore, appellant has prima facie merit in their favour. - Partial stay granted. - ST/Stay/20455/2014, ST/20479/2014-DB - - - Dated:- 6-1-2015 - Archana Wadhwa, Member (J) And B S V Murthy, Member (T),JJ. For the Appellant : Mr Shankar Bala, Chartered Accountants For the Respondent : Mr Mohd Yusuf, Addl Commissioner (AR) ORDER Per: B S V Murthy: The appellant is a special purcha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the service, only when preferential location is provided, service tax is leviable. Appellant is not providing any preferential location or plot to the customers. 4.1 On going through the definition of the service which reads as under: Section 65 (105) (zzzzu) Taxable service means any service provided or to be provided to a buyer, by a builder of a residential complex, or a commercial complex, or any other person authorised by such builder, for providing preferential location or development of such complex but does not include services covered under sub-clauses (zzg), (zzq), (zzzh) and in relation to parking place. Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-clause, preferential location means any location having extra advanta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re, appellant has prima facie merit in their favour. 4.3 As regards the third demand of more than ₹ 38.6 crores, it was submitted that amount relates to services rendered but consideration not received, therefore there was no liability on the appellant. 4.4 The balance amounts are all very small which are approximately ₹ 2 lakhs and therefore we do not consider it necessary to discuss the same. 5. The above discussion would show that appellant does not have case against the first demand. The learned CA was asked about the financial position of the appellant. He fairly submitted that appellant have made about ₹ 3 crores profit last year and about ₹ 1 crore during the current year. Therefore, we consider that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
