TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 219X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion. In this case what emerges is that ITC intended to provide the accommodation built to their own employees. Therefore it is covered by the definition of personal use in the explanation. If the land owner enters into a contract with a promoter/builder/developer who himself provided service of design, planning and construction and if the property is used for personal use then such activity would not be subject to service tax. It is quite clear that CBE&C also has clarified that in cases like this, service tax need not be paid by the builder/developer who has constructed the complex. If the builder/developer constructs the complex himself, there would be no liability of service tax at all. Further in this case it was different totally ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reements were entered into. The first agreement dated 01.04.2006 is the construction agreement followed by a supplemental agreement dated 30.03.2007. With the consent of ITC as per the supplemental agreement dated 30.03.2007, the appellant sub-contracted the construction work to M/s. L T, ECC Division and other sub-contractors. M/s. L T, ECC Division received a part of the contracted amount directly from M/s. ITC as sub contractors. There were other sub-contractors also namely Tech Services, Stone Workers, Schneider Electric India Pvt. Ltd. and all the sub-contractors have discharged the service tax liability on the payments received by them. Since the sub-contractors had discharged the service tax liability on the amounts received by them ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the CBEC has taken a view that in cases like this no tax is liable to be paid. 4. He also relies on the decision in the case of Khurana Engineering Ltd. Vs. CCE, Ahmedabad [2011 (21) S.T.R. 115 (Tri.-Ahmd.)] to submit that in this case the residential complex was meant for personal use of ITC as per the definition of Personal Use in the definition of residential complex and therefore the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Khurana Engineering Ltd. is straightaway applicable to the facts of this case. 5. He also submits that the appellant is a developer and only after 01.07.2010 the liability would arise and addition of explanation to the definition w.e.f. 01.07.2010 is only prospective. 6. Learned AR submits that in this c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut does not include a complex which is constructed by a person directly engaging any other person for designing or planning of the layout, and the construction of such complex is intended for personal use as residence by such person. Explanation-For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that for the purposes of this clause,- (a) personal use includes permitting the complex for use as residence by another person on rent or without consideration; (b) residential unit means a single house or a single apartment intended for use as a place of residence;] 7.1. In this case there is no dispute and it clearly emerges that the residential complex was built for M/s. ITC Ltd. and appellant was the main contractor. Appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... viding services directly to the GOI for its personal use. Therefore, as for the instant arrangement between Ministry of Urban Development and NBCC is concerned, the Service Tax is not leviable. It may, however, be pointed out that if the NBCC, being a party to a direct contract with GOI, engages a sub-contractor for carrying out the whole or part of the construction, then the sub-contractor would be liable to pay Service Tax as in that case, NBCC would be the service receiver and the construction would not be for their personal use. It can be seen that if the land owner enters into a contract with a promoter/builder/developer who himself provided service of design, planning and construction and if the property is used for personal use ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
