Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. Learned authorized representative for the Revenue submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals), Dehradun had relied upon the decision of the Tribunal, in the case of A.S. Sikarwar Vs CCE, Indore2, and in Hari Narain Khandelwal Vs. CCE3, wherein facts of the both these cases were different. He submitted that in the instant case, the Commissioner (Appeals) had overlooked that land development had been done under different projects namely Vasundhara Palm House, Vasundhara Gurubaksh Green, Vasundhara 2 2012(28) STR 479 3 2017(5) GSTL 277 Service Tax Appeal No. 50894 & 51701 of 2019 Eco park etc. under a common area by providing common amenities like Park, Roads, Street Lights, Sewerage system etc. After developing these common areas, plotting of land had been done and these plots were further sold to individual owner of the land for construction of residential house. The assessee had entered into different contracts with each individual owner of the land for construction of residential houses. In view of the definition of residential complex as provided under the Finance Act, the construction activity performed by the party was a part of residential project as the said construction was done in the common area under specified projects viz., Vasundhara Palm House, Vasundhara Gurubaksh Green, Vasundhara Eco park etc. Further, such plots were provided with common amenities. Therefore, the contracts executed by the assessee for construction of residential units under these projects did not qualify for exemption from Service Tax under Notification No. 25/2012-S.T. dated 20.06.2012. Learned authorized representative further submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals), Dehradun had erred by ignoring the fact that in all individual houses shared common area, common amenities like Park, Roads, Street Lights, Sewerage system etc. Learned authorized representative also submitted that as the facts of instant case were consequently totally different from the facts of the case of A.S. Sikarwar (supra). The Commissioner (Appeals), Dehradun had errred by not considering the case in its totality of the activities performed by the assessee. As regards the assessee's appeal, learned authorized representative submitted that they had accepted their Service Tax Appeal No. 50894 & 51701 of 2019 service tax liability on the commercial shops and had paid the same, and not disputed the same before the Commissioner (Appeals). Learned authorized representative further stated that as the assessee had not paid the amount of penalty within 30 days of the issue of order-in-original, hence, the benefit of reduced penalty was not admissible to them.

Explanation. For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that for the purposes of this clause,-(a) "personal use"

includes permitting the complex for use as residence by another person on rent or without consideration; From the definition it is abundantly clear from the above provisions that construction of residential complex having not more than 12 residential units is not sought to be taxed under the Finance Act, 1994. For the levy, it should be a residential complex comprising more than 12 residential units. Admittedly, in the present case, the appellants constructed individual residential houses, which is evident from the Service Tax Appeal No. 50894 & 51701 of 2019 fact that the appellant had entered into different contracts with each individual owner, which has been noted in the order-in-original. In any case, it is clear that the law makers did not want construction of individual residential units to be subject to levy of service tax. We hold that for something to be a residential complex, each individual building should have at least 12 residential units. In the instant case, we note that a piece of land was developed and divided into plots along with some common areas and the plot was sold to each customer. Consequently, we hold that each of these structures is in the form of individual house and the eligible for the exemption.