Prakash Wadhwani Vs Commissioner, Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Bhopal (CESTAT Delhi)
A ‘residential complex’ means a complex comprising a building or buildings, having more than 12 residential units and since the appellant had constructed buildings that did not have more than 12 residential units, no service tax liability could be fastened upon the appellant for construction of 489 EWS quarters at Vinayak Nagar, for the Bhopal Development Authority for the period 1 October, 2007 to 31 March, 2012.
Service tax can be demanded under 65(105)(zzzh) only if the building concerned has more than 12 residential units in the building and such levy will not apply in cases where in one compound has many buildings, each having not more than 12 residential units.
in the present case also the appellant has not constructed a residential complex having more than 12 residential units. It has constructed independent buildings having one residential unit.
The definition of “construction of complex” and a “residential complex” continue to remain the same after 1 July, 2012 and, therefore, service tax liability could not have been fastened even after 1 July, 2012 under “construction of complex”.
The levy of service tax on the appellant under ‘construction of complex service’ is, therefore, not justified and, cannot be sustained.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT JUDGEMENT
This appeal seeks the quashing of the order dated 29 February, 2016 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Bhopal’ by which the demand of service tax of Rs.50,73,944/- has been confirmed. Interest and penalty have also been imposed upon the appellant.
2. The appellant is engaged in civil construction work for some of the Government Departments. During the period from 1 October, 2007 to 31 March, 2014, the appellant undertook the following works for the Bhopal Development Authority:-
