9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 760X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot pay service tax during the period April 2009 to March 2011 in respect of construction of residential complexes provided by them. During investigation appellant explained that on the basis of Board's circular No.108/2/2009-ST 29.1.2009, they have not paid service tax for the period April 2009 to June 2010. It was also stated that appellant has paid service tax for the period July 2010 and March 2011 though belatedly but had not paid interest on such belated payment. They had not filed periodical returns for the period April 2009 to March 2010 and filed returns belatedly from April 2010 and March 2011. Therefore, the show cause notice dt. 11.04.2012 was issued to the appellant proposing to demand service tax for the period April 2009 to Ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... romoter is not liable to pay service tax in respect of construction of residential units even against installment payments. The said decision is followed in CC, CE & Service Tax, Visakhapatnam-I Vs Pragati Edifice Pvt. Ltd. (vice versa) as reported in 2019 (31) G.S.T.L 241 (Tri.-Hyderabad). 2.3 It is submitted that the appellant has paid the service tax from July 2010 onwards though belatedly. The appellant is liable to pay interest on the said amount. Ld. Counsel prayed that the appeal may be allowed. 3. Ld. A.R Shri Anoop Singh appeared for the Department and reiterated the findings in the impugned order. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The demand contested by the appellant in this appeal is for the period from April 2009 to June 2010. The Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with prospective customers for construction of residential units in a residential complex. Such works contracts involving transfer of immovable property were brought within the purview of taxable service by adding explanation to Section 65(105)(zzzh) w.e.f. 1-7-2010, and therefore, it has to be held that such contracts were not covered by Section 65(105)(zzzh) during the period prior to 1-7-2010." 7. The view expressed in the case of Krishna Homes was reiterated by the Tribunal in the case of Pragati Edifice Pvt. Ltd. (supra). 8. From the discussions above, we are of the view that demand of service tax for the period prior to July 2010 cannot sustain and requires to be set aside which we hereby do. For the period after July 2010 to March ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
