TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1661X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Nambiar, J. Shri Dr. K.B. Muhamed Kutty (SR) and K.J. Abraham, Advocate, for the Petitioner. Shri N. Nagaresh, Assistant Solicitor General and Tojan J. Vathikulam, SC, for the Respondent. JUDGMENT In all these writ petitions, the petitioners, who are engaged in the construction of buildings, both residential complexes as well as commercial complexes for subsequent sale to clients/customers, have impugned the show cause notices issued to them by the respondents under the Finance Act, 1994, as amended, governing the levy of service tax. The challenge in the writ petitions is essentially against the proposals in the show cause notices that contemplate a levy of service tax as applicable to commercial and industrial construct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt in Commissioner, Central Excise Customs, Kerala v. Larsen Toubro Ltd. [(2015) 84 VST 403 (SC) = 2015 (39) S.T.R. 913 (S.C.)], wherein, the Supreme Court has clarified that, for the period prior to 1-6-2007, when the service of works contract was introduced in the Finance Act, 1994 for the first time, there was no scope for the respondent authorities to split up the composite contract that was entered into by the petitioners, for the purposes of taxing only a portion thereof under the heads of commercial and industrial construction services / construction of residential complex services . 2. In W.P(C). No. 6050/2009, the petitioner impugns Ext.P4 order that has been passed confirming demand of service tax on the basis that the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rified by the Supreme Court in the decision referred to above, and the Supreme Court has made it clear that for period prior to 1-6-2007, in the case of composite works contract services, there was no enabling provision in the Finance Act, 1994, which enabled the authorities administrating the levy of service tax under the Act, to artificially split up the components in a composite contract into such portions as would merit classification under the heads of commercial and industrial construction services / construction of residential complex services , for the purposes of levying a tax on those portions alone. The said decision is significant in the matter of classification of composite services because, one would have to now ascertain the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icating authorities under the Finance Act, 1994 for an adjudication of the disputes, I dismiss the writ petitions, in their challenge against the impugned show cause notices. 5. In the case of W.P.(C). No. 6050/2009, I find that the challenge against Ext.P4 order of the adjudicating authority is one that has to be legally sustained. In Ext.P4 order, the adjudicating authority does not give any finding with regard to the correct classification of the service rendered by the petitioner therein. The only reason cited in Ext.P4 order for confirming the demand in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner is that the petitioner could not contend for an alternate classification having already declared his service under the head of commerc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
