TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 829X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ESTATES PVT. LTD. [2018 (10) TMI 840 - CESTAT BANGALORE] wherein identical facts were involved and the Tribunal has held that Prior to 01.07.2010 builders/developers are not liable to pay service tax for the Construction of Residential Complex Service. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/20282/2018-DB - Final Order No. 20505/2019 - Dated:- 27-6-2019 - MR. S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER And MR. P. ANJANI KUMAR, TECHNICAL MEMBER Mr. V. Unnikrishnan, Advocate For the Appellant Mr. Madhup Sharan, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per : S.S GARG After hearing the early hearing application, the learned counsel for the appellant requested tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al. 4. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same is passed without properly appreciating the facts and the binding judicial precedent on the same issue. He further submits that the appellant is a builder constructing residential flats on their own land and in such cases, no service tax is payable till 1.7.2010 when the Explanation was inserted under Section 65(105)(zzzh) of the Finance Act, 1994. He further submitted that this issue is no more res integra and has been consistently held by the Tribunal that no service tax is payable by the builders engaged in the construction of residential complexes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ents entered with land owners and prospective buyers. The period of dispute is from 16.06.2005 to 31.01.2007. Further we find that an explanation was added for the Finance Act 2010 in Section 65(105) (zzzh) of the Finance Act 1994 whereby it was clarified that levy of service tax on construction of complex by builder will be taxable only from 01.07.2010 and further the Board vide its Circular dated 10.02.2012 clarified that prior to 01.07.2010 service tax is not chargeable from builders/developer. Further we find that this issue has been considered by the Division Bench of this Tribunal in the case of CCE Vs. U.B. Construction (P) Ltd. cited supra wherein the Tribunal in para 5 has observed as under: 5. In Maharashtra Cham ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve, though in view of the Apex Court judgment in the case of M/s. Larsen Toubro Limited and Others v. State of Karnataka Others (supra), the agreements entered into by a builder/promoter/developer with prospective buyers for construction of residential units in a residential complex against payments being made by the prospective buyers in installments during construction and in terms of which the possession of the residential unit, is to be handed over to the customers on completion of the residential complex and full payment having been made, are to be treated as works contracts, it has to be held that during the period of dispute, there was no intention of the Government to tax the activity in terms of such contracts a builder/develop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
