Case Law Details
Real Value Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai)
a. The services provided by the appellant in respect of the projects executed by them for the period prior to 1.6.2007 being in the nature of composite works contract cannot be brought within the fold of commercial or industrial construction service or construction of complex service in the light of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court judgment in Larsen & Toubro (supra) upto 1.6.2007
b. For the period after 1.6.2007, service tax liability under category of „commercial or industrial construction service‟ under Section 65(105)(zzzh) ibid, „Construction of Complex Service‟ under Section 65(105)(zzzq) will continue to be attracted only if the activities are in the nature of services‟ simpliciter.
c. For activities of construction of new building or civil structure or new residential complex etc. involving indivisible composite contract, such services will require to be exigible to service tax liabilities under „Works Contract Service‟ as defined under section 65(105)(zzzza) ibid.
d. The show cause notices in all these cases prior to 1.6.2007 and subsequent to that date for the periods in dispute, proposing service tax liability on the impugned services involving composite works contract, under „Commercial or Industrial Construction Service‟ or „ Construction of Complex‟ Service, cannot therefore sustain. In respect of any contract which is a composite contract, service tax cannot be demanded under CICS / CCS for the periods also after 1.6.2007 for the periods in dispute in these appeals. For this very reason, the proceedings in all these appeals cannot sustain.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
