9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1009X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the name of 'Adarsh Esplanade', 'Adarsh Palm Meadows', 'Adarsh Palm Retreat', 'Adarsh Vista' and 'Adarsh Rhythm'. The Department alleged that on the verification of the records of the appellants, it was seen that they were providing the services under the category of 'Construction of Residential Complexes' in terms of Section 65(30A) of the Finance Act, 1994. It was also alleged that the services rendered by appellants also included maintenance of immovable property service and appellants are also liable to service tax on reverse charge mechanism for the services they have utilized from overseas architects. The appellants have paid during the course of enquiry/investigations, an sum of Rs. 42,32,331/-. The department has issued a show-caus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that no tax is payable by builder/promoter prior to 1.7.2010; they have also relied upon Tribunal's decision in the case of R.F. Properties and Trading Ltd. vs. CCE, Jaipur: 2013 (31) STR 578 (Tri.-Del.). They have submitted that in both the cases the Hon'ble Tribunal relied upon the judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Maharashtra Chambers of Housing Industry vs. UOI: 2012 (25) STR 305 (Bom.) wherein the Bombay High Court considered the issue whether the explanation was prospective or retrospective in operation and Rule that the explanation inserted by Finance Act, 2010 brings within the fold of taxable service a construction service provided by the builder to a buyer where there is an intended sale between the parties whether bef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that Bombay High Court has given a categorical judgment on this issue in the case of Indian Ship Owners Association vs. UOI: 2009 (13) STR 235 (Bom.), which was maintained in Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2010 (17) STR J57. The show-cause notice at para 8 has clearly indicated that for the period 18.4.2006 to 31.1.2007 an amount of service tax of Rs. 3,52,102/- was payable by them. So they submit that service tax liability, if any, on the said service would be applicable only for a period 18.4.2006 to 31.1.2007 i.e., Rs. 3,52,102/-. The appellants submitted that the same may be appropriated from the refund due to them. In respect of refund, they have submitted that they have not raised any invoices and the amounts have not been recovered from a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also not liable to pay any service tax on the deposits received for management, maintenance or repair services and they are not liable to pay any service tax on reverse charge mechanism basis for the services they have utilized from the overseas architects for the period prior to 18.4.2006. We uphold that the appellants are required to pay service tax of Rs. 3,52,102/- on this count for the period 18.4.2006 to 31.1.2007. 5. As regards the refund, i.e., appeal No.ST/1262/2011, we find that it needs to go back to the original adjudicating authority to examine the documents that may be submitted by the appellants and to sanction the refund while appropriating the amount of Rs. 3,52,102/- which is held to be payable by the appellants. 6. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
