The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) reiterated the order of the Supreme Court (SC) wherein it was held the works contract service prior to 01.06.2007 cannot be levied with service tax
The appellant, Pawan Edifice Pvt Ltd, received Rs. 4 crores from M/s. D S Properties during 2005-06 to 2008-09 for providing construction service in respect of residential complex namely ‘Vicenza Repreat’ having more than 12 units i.e. Construction of Residential Complex Service which was taxable service as defined under Section 65(30a), 65(91a) & 65(105)(zzzh) of the Finance Act, 1994 levied with effect from 16.06.2005.
The case of the department is that the appellant failed to obtain service tax registration for the same and also failed to pay the service tax and filing of ST-3 returns for the said period. Later on, the appellant obtained service tax registration and paid service tax with effect from 01.06.2007 along with interest and penalty and filed ST-3 returns for the relevant period.
Saurabh Dixit, Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that it is not required in the present case that the appellant should opt for the Works Contract Service for the reason that the appellant right from the beginning maintained that they are providing the Works Contract Service.
The Coram comprising Ramesh Nair, Judicial Member and CL Mahar, Technical Member observed that “The Supreme Court clearly held in the judgment of L & T, held that Works Contract Service prior to 01.06.2007 cannot be levied with service tax. Since the levy became effective from 01.06.2007, the appellant has correctly obtained the registration and started paying service tax under Works Contract Service.”
“The reason for denial of Works Contract Service by the Commissioner (Appeals) is that the appellant should opt for the Works Contract Service. We are of the considered view that this option can be exercised only when the assessee wishes to shift from one service to Works Contract Service which is not the case here” the Tribunal noted.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
