2024 (4) TMI 173

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... The case of the Revenue is that during the internal audit of accounts of the assessee, they appeared to have noticed; (a) Non-payment of Service tax on commercial rental income under immovable property service (RIPS) for the period from September 2008 to September 2009, and (b) Non-payment of Service tax under Construction Service (CS) and Commercial Complex Service (CCS) for the period from April 2009 to September 2009. 3. Consequently, Show Cause Notices were issued proposing to demand service tax as above, apart from interest under Section 75 of the Finance Tax Act, 1994 and penalty under Ss. 76 and 77 ibid. It appears that the assessee filed a detailed reply to the above Show Cause Notices, there by denying liability to service t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ely classifiable under Works Contract Service. Therefore, going by the decision of Apex Court in Larsen and Toubro (supra), the liability under Works Contract Service would be taxable only from 1.7.2010 and hence the present demands would not survive. 5. Per Contra, Shri M. Ambe, Deputy Commissioner, relied on the findings of the Original Authority. 6. We have considered rival contentions and we have also carefully perused the impugned orders and the documents placed on record and we find that the following issues arise for our consideration; (1) whether the Revenue is justified in levying penalty under Sections 76 & 77 for RIPS? and (2) whether the demand of service tax in respect of CS/CCS is correct for the period from April 2001 t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ax a particular service, the liability under that head shall only be prospective and not applicable for any period prior to that date, i.e. 01.07.2010 as in the case on hand. Hence, service tax could not be levied under works contract service prior to 01.07.2010; and the levy could only be under CRCS/CCS simplicitor as the case may be. Further, as held by the Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal vide Final Order No. A/31010 to 31011/2019 dated 18.9.2019 in the case of Pragati Edifice Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Visakhapatnam - I, after 1.6.2007, the chargeability to works contract arises only if it is a composite contract and under construction of complex service if it is a service simplicitor. 8.1 We no....