‘Consideration’ defined under Indian contract Act is different from Finance Act

Sankalpan Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd Vs Commissioner of Service Tax (CESTAT Mumbai)

The appellant is a works contractor. Demand was confirmed under “commercial or industrial construction” service, “works contract service”, “renting of immovable property” service and “business support service”.

The Hon’ble CESTAT, Mumbai set aside all demands holding: (i) demand prior to 01.07.2017 under “construction” service for works contract cannot survive. Follows Larsen and Toubro (SC); (ii) point of taxation (on accrual basis) cannot be ground to demand tax again once the tax has been paid on receipt basis, subject to verification; (iii) “consideration” as defined under the Indian contract Act is different from the said term as defined under the Finance Act. Consideration has to be for provision of service and not forfeiture. Remands matter to commissioner for verification. Allows appeal.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF CESTAT MUMBAI

This appeal is directed against Order-in-Original No. 24/ST-VII/RK/2015-16 dated 31.12.2015 of the Commissioner of Service Tax-VII, Mumbai. By the impugned order following has been held:

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.