Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

along with interest and penalty.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant having registered office at C-9, Vallabhbari, Kota were engaged in the 1 The appellant construction of EWS & LIG Flats as per Model No. 2 of Affordable Housing Policy, 2009 of Government of Rajasthan. A Show Cause Notice dated 21.04.2017was issued to the appellant alleging that they were providing taxable service of 'Construction of Residential Complex Services',as defined in Section 65(30a) of the Finance Act, 1994 & taxable under clause of 65(105) (zzzh) of the Finance Act, 1994 up to 30.06.2012. From 01.07.2012, the said services of construction of complex, building or civil structure or part thereof was covered under declared service Section 66E(b) of the Finance Act 1994. The notice alleged that the appellant had evaded Service tax amounting to Rs.1,72,20,400/- for the period 2011-12 (Oct-2011 to March-12) to 2014-15. The matter was adjudicated vide Order-in-Original No. 4/ST/UDR/2017-18 dated 24.01.2018, the Joint Commissioner confirmed the demand along with interest and penalty. Aggrieved by the said order-in-original, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals), who rejected the appeal and upheld the order-in-original. The appellant filed the present appeal before the Tribunal.

(f) a residential complex predominantly meant for self-use or the use of their employees or other persons specified in the Explanation 1 to clause 44 of section 65B of the said Act.

The above clause was specifically meant for residential complexes and thus the intention was very clear that the residential complex were not covered clause (a) and further even under clause (f) only this residential complex were covered which were predominantly meant for self-use or the use of their employees or other persona specified in the explanation I to clause 44 of section 65 B of the said Act. 5.2. As regards Point of Taxation Rules, learned Authorized Representative submitted that as per the second proviso to the rule, in case of continuous supply of service where the provision of the whole or part of the service is determined periodically on the completion of an event in terms of a contract, which requires the receiver of service to make any payment to service provider, the date of completion of each such event as specified in the contract shall be deemed to be the date of completion of provision of service. In the instant case, the "construction of residential complex" service provided by the service provider fall under the category of continuous supply of service. Further, as per the para 24 of the agreement entered by the service provider with the UIT, the payment was to be released to them on completion of stages as laid down thereunder. Further the UIT vide their letter dated 06.07.2016 had also clarified that payment of Running Bills No. I to VI had been released for the work done by them from the date 15.12.2011 to 20.06.2012. Thus, the date of receipt of payment by the service provider implied completion of provision of services for different stages, as agreed in the agreement. Consequently, the date of receipt of payment was the relevant date for computation of the service tax liability.As per the Affordable Housing Scheme (Model No. 2), which is in respect of Private Developer on Private Land - the land owner will provide his land for conversion and development before the UIT und the UIT under this scheme will not charge any conversion fees, development fees, building plan fees, external development charge etc. from the land owner and land will be converted for Commercial use. In such scheme, the land owner will use only 40% land for construction of EWS & LIG Flats under affordable housing project, whereas entire land was to be converted by UIT for commercial use. Thus, it is apparent that the service provider had been given the benefit of 100% land and further they were required to use only 40% of the land for construction of EWS and LIG flats. The remaining 60% land which in their possession, they were required to construct MIG A houses in 20% of the area, and the remaining area could be used by them for consideration provided to the service provider and is in the cost of construction of affordable housing scheme. The services provide by them to the UIT for Affordable Housing Scheme are taxable services and they were liable to pay service tax on the said services as computed in the notice issued to them in terms of proviso to section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 along with interest under section 75 of the Act read with Section 174 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act 2017.Learned Authorized Representative submitted that the appellant had suppressed the facts with intent to evade the due service tax and had the investigation against them not been initiated, the said non-payment of service tax would have remained unearthed and they have not obtained the registration and have violated the provisions of section 69 of the Act and have rendered themselves liable for penalty u/s 77(1) of the Act. In the light of the above submissions, learned Authorized Representative prayed that the present appeal may be dismissed.

6. We have heard the Learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Authorized Representative for the Department. The issue for our consideration is whether service tax is leviable on the amount received from the Urban Improvement Trust, Kota on ―construction of residential complex' for the period covering pre and post negative list, October, 2011 to March, 2015. We will consider each period independently:

October 2011-June 2012 6.1 The appellant entered into an agreement with the Urban Improvement Trust, Kota for construction of 1216 EWS flats and 512 LIG flats under the Kansuwa Affordable Housing Scheme. For the said construction, the appellant received the fixed consideration of Rs. 2.45 lakh per EWS flat and Rs. 3.75 lakh per LIG flat. It has been submitted that for the said period, the appellant did not take registration as the UIT, Kota was not covered by the definition of the term ‗person' in the Finance Act, 1994. Learned Counsel submitted that in addition to the fact that UIT was not covered by the definition of person, the appellant had provided the services of construction to the nodal agency of the State Government of Rajasthan. Hence, the service was not taxable.

(iii) any one or more of facilities or services such as park, lift, parking space, community hall, common water supply or effluent treatment system, located within a premises and the layout of such premises is approved by an authority under any law for the time being in force, but does not include a complex which is constructed by a person directly engaging any other person for designing or planning of the layout, and the construction of such complex is intended for personal use as residence by such person. 6.1.2. In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that the appellant provided construction of 1216 EWS flats and 512 LIG flats under the Kansuwa Affordable Housing Scheme for UIT, Kota. It has been submitted by the ld. Counsel that UIT, Kota cannot be considered as ‗person' as the term had not been defined in the Finance Act, 1994. It has been submitted that the impugned order has relied on the definition of person as per the General Clauses Act, 1897, wherein ‗Person' includes any company, or association body of individuals, whereas the appellant had provided to the UIT, Kota which was the agency of the Government of Rajasthan. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the term ―person‟ appearing in the definition must be construed to be a natural person and by no stretch of imagination will include the State or its officers or the posts created under a statute as held by the Constitution Bench of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of West Bengal Vs. Union of India.16 6.1.3. In this context, we take note of the Tribunal decision in the case of Dy Commissioner of Police, Jodhpur vs Commissioner of Central Excise17 wherein it was held that the term ‗person' was defined under section 65B(37) post 1.7.2012 and the same cannot be imported for the period prior to the said definition. The relevant paras are reproduced hereinafter:-