Jain Housing & Construction Limited Vs Commissioner of Service Tax (CESTAT Chennai)
CESTAT Chennai held that services provided in the nature of composite works contract for which project is executed for the period prior to 1.6.2007 is outside the purview of service tax.
Facts- The appellant is a developer engaged in the development of residential projects and during the course of its business, it enters into composite contracts with the buyers. The Revenue issued Show Cause Notices proposing to levy Service Tax with respect to various projects executed by the appellant under Construction of Residential Complex Service and Works Contract Service, in response to which it appears that the appellant filed a detailed reply denying the tax liability as proposed in the Show Cause Notices.
The Commissioner, however, not satisfied with the reply, proceeded to confirm the demands, as proposed in the Show Cause Notices vide impugned common order, against which the present appeals have been filed before this forum.
Conclusion- In the case of M/s. Real Value Promoters Pvt. Ltd. it was held that 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 upto 1.6.2007.
We are satisfied that the ratio laid down therein applies to the case on hand. Therefore, we accept the submissions of the Learned Advocate for the appellant that the issue is settled in favour of the appellant.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT DELHI ORDER
These appeals are filed by the assessee against the common impugned Order-in-Original Nos. 54, 55 & 56/2012 dated 28.03.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai, whereby the Commissioner-Adjudicating Authority has demanded the Service Tax under Section 73(1) read with Section 73(2) of the Finance Act, 1994 for the period from April 2006 to September 2009, along with applicable interest and penalty, as proposed in the Show Cause Notices.
2. Brief facts, which are relevant for our consideration and which are undisputed, are that the appellant is a developer engaged in the development of residential projects and during the course of its business, it enters into composite contracts with the buyers. The Revenue issued three Show Cause Notices, namely:-
