TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 1043X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he immunity provided under section 108 of the Finance Act 2013 and would render the scheme redundant and meaningless. When the declaration is filed, the department gets sufficient time to enquire and satisfy as to the category of service and value declared. On entertaining a different view the department cannot allege misdeclaration. There should be substantial and conscious misdeclaration for reopening a matter for which discharge certificate is issued - There is no evidence to show that there is any conscious and substantial misdeclaration on the part of the respondent. The Tribunal in the case of Sravanthi Contractors and Developers [ 2019 (9) TMI 648 - CESTAT HYDERABAD ] had followed the decision in the case of Frontline Build ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by such order, department is now before the Tribunal. 2. On behalf of the department, learned AR, Shri P. Sudhakar Reddy appeared and argued the matter. He adverted to the show cause notice and submitted that the respondent had declared the services under Construction of Residential Complex services and had paid only ₹ 34,53,740/- towards service tax. In fact, the respondents had owned land to the extent of 7.02 acres and they had taken another 1.07 acres for development from another land owner. For filing declaration, the respondents had considered the services rendered in the land taken from another land owner only. The respondents had carried out construction services in the land belonging to them also. The construc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tructed residential buildings in 7.02 acres belonging to him and also constructed residential buildings in another 1.07 acres which was taken for development from another land owner. As per circular issued by the revenue which was prevailing at that period, the assessee is required to pay service tax only on the construction activities done in the land taken for development from another. The construction of residential buildings done in the land owned by the assessee was considered as self service and exempted from service tax. The respondent had correctly disclosed the value of taxable service for construction activities done in 1.07 acres. Thus the allegation that respondent made false declaration is incorrect. There is no ground for reop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... making the declaration. The declaration was made in respect of residential complex service rendered in 1.07 acres and paid up the tax liability. After issuing discharge certificate, the department as an afterthought has issued the SCN proposing to classify the services under WCS, so as to bring the construction of residential complexes done in 7.02 acres also within the ambit of levy of service tax. This is only an issue of interpretation. When the declaration is filed, the department gets sufficient time to enquire and satisfy as to the category of service and value declared. On entertaining a different view the department cannot allege misdeclaration. There should be substantial and conscious misdeclaration for reopening a matter for whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
