2015 (12) TMI 332

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ondent. ORDER Demand for Service Tax of Rs. 94,18,889/- has been confirmed with interest. Period involved is from 1-4-2005 to 30-9-2010. Besides demand for Service Tax with interest, penalties under various Sections have also been imposed. 2. Learned Counsel on behalf of the appellant submitted that benefit of cum-tax treatment of the amount received has not been extended. An amount of Rs. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... subsidized rates to rural and urban areas for irrigation and drinking and it was held that service cannot be said to be primarily for commerce. In this case, obviously the purpose was development of industry and water supply is for this purpose. The Commissioner in the impugned order has considered the view of this Tribunal in the case of Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and has observe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... The question is not whether the service provider is a commercial organization or not; the question is whether the objective of the service is commercial or industrial. When a shopping complex is constructed with an intention to rent out the shops, the objective is for income and therefore, it is for commercial purpose. Therefore, we find that the appellant has not made out a prima facie case in t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X