The Custom Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) ruled that the ‘construction of complex’ and ‘residential complex’ are the same and demand for service tax can not be fastened.
In the case of M/s Prakash Builders vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Custom and Service Tax, the appellate tribunal set aside the demand of service tax under “construction of complex”. However, the question pertaining to the demand of service tax under the Goods Transport Agency (GTA) is a matter of remand by the Principal Commissioner for a fresh determination.
The appellant is a partnership firm, which is engaged in civil construction work for some government departments. The two show-cause notices were issued wherein the activity is undertaken by the appellant was shown to be classifiable and taxable under the category of ‘construction of complex’ under Section 65 (30a) of the Finance Act, 1994 and the second show-cause notice pertains to the liability of the appellant for the payment of service tax as a recipient of Goods Transport Agency (GTA). The notice further seeks to demand service tax with the penalty and interest.
The issue before the Tribunal was regarding the classification and taxability of the activity undertaken by the appellant under the category of ‘construction of complex’ under Section 65 (30a) of the Finance Act, 1994.
The other issue raised was whether the appellant is liable to pay service tax under the Goods Transport Agency (GTA) or not?
The Custom Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) consists of President, Justice Dilip Gupta and a Technical Member C.L. Mahar set aside the demand of service tax under “construction of complex”. However, the question pertaining to the demand of service tax under the Goods Transport Agency (GTA) is a matter of remand by the Principal Commissioner for a fresh determination.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the Judgment
