Construction after Sale of Plot in Complex liable to service tax

Exchange Rate for imported goods is Rs 74.03 Per Pound Sterling and Rs 51.22 Per Yen-Exchange Rate for export is Rs 72.45 Per Pound Sterling and Rs 49.94 Per Yen-Customs Non-Tariff Notification No.128 Sensex slips further and closes at 8773 100 per cent EOUs allowed to export non-basmati rice-DGFT Notification No.59 Customs duty of 5 per cent imposed on import of Pig Iron, spiegeleisen, semi-finished products, flat products & long products Import of Crude Soyabean Oil subjected to 20 per cent customs duty- no change in import duty on refined soyabean oil-Customs Tariff Notification No.122 Time-limit for filing refund of service tax extended to 6 months-Service Tax Notification No.32 Rahul Bajaj asks Industry to prepare for the worst Tariff Value for import of Brass Scrap is 3525 and for poppy seeds 5206-Customs Non-Tariff Notification No. 127 CBEC clarifies the entire amount of duty paid by the manufacturer, as shown in the invoice would be available as credit irrespective of the fact that subsequent to clearance of the goods, the price is reduced by way of discount or otherwise-Central Excise Circular No.877 Mandavariya (Kishangarh), District Ajmer notified for Unloading of imported goods and loading of export goods-Customs Non-Tariff Notification No.117 SC Ruling-the entitlement of benefit in terms of Section 32AB, Section 80HH and Section 80I of the Income Tax Act- conversion of Jumbo rolls of photographic films into small flats and rolls in the desired sizes amounted to manufacture/production-AIT-2008-413-SC SC Ruling-Whether any "gift" arose in terms of Section 2(xii) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 on the allotment of rights issue by the appellant company to its shareholders vide Board's Resolution- Whether there was any element of "gift" as defined under Section 2(xii) in the appellant issuing Bonus shares in the ratio of 1:23-AIT-2008-412-SC DEPB benefit allowed on export of cement and steel-DGFT PN 108 exports of cement in all types and forms and primary steel products eligible for export incentives under Focus Market Scheme-DGFT Notification No.58 Import of Marble Tiles-DGFT Notification No.57 Clarification on setting up Duty Free Shops approved by FIPB-Customs Circular No.19 HC Ruling-Income Tax-"reserves" arising out of the acquisition of the business of Tata Cellular Limited could never have the character of "income" in the hands of the petitioners-pre-requisite condition contained in proviso to section 147 to enable the re-assessment to be opened after period of 4 years have elapsed have not been met-AIT-2008-410-HC HC Ruling-Central Excise- valuation of the goods for the purpose of excise duty and whether excise duty was chargeable under Section 4 or Section 4A of the Central Excise Act 1944-while construing rule 3, who are excluded are only the institutional or industrial consumers as explained in Rule 2A and the industrial or institutional consumers in terms of the proviso to rule 2(p) for the purpose of chapter-II are the same-If the person who purchase the prepacked commodity not directly from the manufacturer or packers, they are consumers and the declaration will be of no effect-AIT-2008-408-HC Government considering imposition of import duty on steel Bad News for Consulting Engineers- whether turnkey contract can be vivisected?- The conclusion in Daelim case on the point, prima facie, being not in accordance with law, matter goes to Larger Bench-AIT-2008-405-CESTAT Larger Bench of CESTAT rules Credit is admissible on an input service relating to the business-AIT-2008-407-CESTAT credit of the service tax paid on the outdoor catering (canteen) service is admissible as input service under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004-AIT-2008-406-CESTAT The payment for use of "services for MTNL/other companies via the interconnect/port/access/toll by the assessee would not fall within the purview of payments as provided for under section 194J of the Act, so as to be eligible for tax deduction at source-The interconnect charges/port access charges cannot be regarded as fees for technical services-AIT-2008-404-HC Computation of Value under Section 14 for Levy of Export Duty - Customs Circular No. 18 Advance Ruling- Whether the service fee paid by the applicant to Intertek Testing Management Limited UK under Global Management Service Agreement is taxable as "Royalties & Fee for Technical Services" as per the provisions of Article 13 of DTAA between India & UK? Whether the applicant is required to deduct tax at source on the service fee paid to Intertek Testing Management Limited, UK, at the rate of 10% plus applicable surcharge and cess as per the provisions of section 115A(1)(b)(BB) of the Income-tax Act-AIT-2008-401-AAR Larger Bench of SC Ruling-whether the revenue can be precluded from filing an appeal even though in respect of some other years involving identical dispute no appeal is filed -AIT-2008-403-SC SC Ruling-whether transfer of Banking Undertaking gave rise to taxable capital gains under Section 45 of the 1961 Act-it was not possible to compute capital gains and, therefore, the said amount of Rs. 10.20 cr. was not taxable under Section 45 of Income Tax Act-AIT-2008-400-SC Export duty of 8 per cent notified in place of earlier rate of Rs. 200 per tonne on export of iron ore fines-Customs Tariff Notification No.121 Pan Masala Packing Machines (Capacity Determination And Collection of Duty) Second Amendment Rules, 2008-Central Excise Non-Tariff Notification No.45 SC rules Ethylene and propylene manufactured by the assessee and used in its factory in the further manufacture of the same goods would be entitled to the benefit of exemption contained in notification no.217/86-AIT-2008-398-SC New DEPB Rates on export of all products notified–DGFT PN 102 service tax paid under Section 66A is available as 'input credit' under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 provided the said services are used as input services by the manufacturer or producer of final products or a provider of output taxable service-Service Tax Trade Notice No.43/2008 Anti-dumping duty imposed on import of cable ties from China & Taiwan-Customs Tariff Notification No.118 Definitive Anti-dumping duty imposed on import of Phenol from Singapore, South Africa & European Union-Customs Tariff Notification No.114 High-tech products entitled to benefits under High-Tech Products Export Promotion Scheme –DGFT PN 101

JUDGMENTS

CENTRAL EXCISE

CUSTOMS

exchange rate

SERVICE TAX

INCOME TAX

VAT

FINANCE ACTS

FINANCE BILLS

EOU STPI

SEZ

DGFT

RBI

NTT

RESOURCES

Email | Print

Construction after Sale of Plot in Complex liable to service tax

AIT New Network

NEW DELHI. Authority for Advance Rulings(Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax) vide a ruling AIT-2008-128-AAR has decided significant issues relating to service tax on construction of a residential house after sale of plot in a complex.

The applicant is a developer of a residential housing complex in Gujarat. The proposed activities nos. 3 & 4 involve sale of plots of land inside the complex belonging to the applicant, to prospective buyers who will also enter into a works contract with the applicant for the construction of residential units. While in activity no.3 the applicant himself will execute the works contract and construct a residential house, in case of activity no 4, the applicant will further enter into a works contract with other contractors who will be constructing the residential houses, The applicant sought advance ruling en the following questions of law under section 96-C of the Finance Act, 1994:-

"1. Whether the applicant is liable to service tax under section 65 (105) (zzzza) of the Finance Act, 1994 under the notified taxable service of execution of works contact in case of Proposed Activity No.3?

2. If the answer to Question No.1 is in affirmative, whether the applicant is entitled to deduct the value of transfer of property in goods involved in the execution of said works contract if the applicant opts for payment of service tax at the rate of 2 per cent under the Works Contract (Composition Scheme for Payment of Service Tax) Rules, 2007 as notified vide notification no.32/2007-Service Tax dated 22.05.2007. (The next part of the question beginning with the phrase "in other words" is omitted as unnecessary).

3. Whether the applicant is liable to service tax under section 65 (105) (zzzza) of the Finance Act, 1994 under the notified taxable service of execution of works contract in case of Proposed Activity No.4?

4. Whether the applicant is liable to service tax under section 65 (105) (zzzza) of the Finance Act, 1994 under the notified taxable service of execution of works contract in case of Proposed Activity No.4, even when the petty contractors discharge service tax liability under the notified taxable service of execution of works contract?"

Contention of Applicant:

The works contracts which attract service tax under this head are outlined in (a) to (e) of (ii) of the Explanation to (zzzza). The applicant contended that since the works contract in activities 3 & 4 involves construction of a new building, such an activity can only be covered under (ii) (b) in the above Explanation. The said classification i.e., (b) covers "construction of a new building or a civil structure or a part thereof, or of a pipeline or conduit, primarily for the purposes of commerce or industry" Since the new building proposed to be constructed in the course of the execution of the works contract is a residential one, and is not for the purpose of commerce or industry, such a works contract will not fall under (b) and therefore will not attract service tax. The applicant further stated that a works contract for construction of a new building for residential purposes is also not covered under any of the remaining classifications in (ii) of the Explanation to (zzzza). The classification (c) which covers "construction of a new residential complex or a part thereof” is not applicable in applicant's case as the works contract is for construction of an individual residential unit and not for construction of a residential complex. The applicant adds that construction of a new residential building, whether located inside the complex or outside should be treated equally for the purpose of levy of service tax. Since a works contract for construction of a new residential building outside the complex is not leviable to service tax, it would not be correct to impose such a levy simply because the residential unit is located within a complex. No service tax, according to the applicant, is therefore leviable in respect of the works contracts involved in activities 3 & 4.

With regard to the activity no. 4, it was stated that when the contractor who executes the works contract on behalf of the applicant is paying service tax on the execution of the works contract, no liability to pay service tax can be fastened on the applicant as its activity does not come within the definition and scope of service tax under section 65 (105) (zzzza).

Observations of the Authority:

As per the draft of the works contract submitted, it is clear that such contracts will be for construction of individual houses on sub-plots located within the plot owned by the applicant and on which the applicant proposes to develop a residential housing project. As per the applicant's own narration, the residential project to be constructed on this plot would have at least 12 residential units, a club house and other common facilities and the layout of the project would be got approved by the prescribed authority under the relevant law in force. Such a project constructed as per activities 3 & 4 squarely conforms to the definition of a "residential complex" given in clause (91 a) of section 65, and the individual houses constructed get covered under the definition of a "residential unit" contained therein. Execution of the works contract thus involves construction of a part of a new "residential complex" and is covered by (c). One plea put forward by the applicant is that since the works contract with the buyers of the plots was for construction of individual houses and not for construction of a residential complex as such, the works contract cannot be classified under (c) of (ii) of Explanation in (zzzza). This plea cannot be accepted. A perusal of the draft of the works contract indicates that this contract is not for construction of a house on any plot of land but on a land which is located within the perimeters of the bigger plot located at Survey No.2/1, Moje Nana Chiloda, Gandhinagar. This plot is owned by the applicant and he proposes to build thereon a complete residential complex comprising of not merely individual residences but also a club and other common facilities which will be used by all the residents of the complex. When the buyer of the sub-plot enters into a works contract, such a contract is not for the construction of an isolated house, but for one which will make available to the buyer, all the facilities such as a club house etc. provided for by the residential complex. Individual houses built through the works contract, therefore, have to be viewed as parts of a residential complex rather than as stand alone houses. Thus the expression "or a part thereof" occurring in clause (c) of (zzzza) of section 65 (105) squarely applies.

In the course of the hearing, the applicant has referred to the provisions of section 65A of the Finance Act to claim that classification of the works contract in activities 3 & 4 under classification (c) in (ii) of the Explanation in section 65 (105) (zzzza) has to be ruled out. They state that as per this section, if a taxable service is, prima facie, classifiable under two or more sub clauses of clause (105) of section 65, then the classification which occurs first amongst the sub clauses which equally merit consideration, is the appropriate classification for the taxable service. Since in the applicant's case the works contract appears to be equally classifiable under (b) and (c) of (ii) of Explanation to sub clause (zzzza), the correct classification is (b) which occurs prior to (c) and therefore classification as a "new residential complex or a part thereof" referred to in (c) has to be ruled out. This argument of the applicant is not valid. Section 65A is applicable when a taxable service is prima facie classifiable under two or more sub clauses of clause (105) of section 65. This is not the situation in the instant case where the service provided in relation to execution of a works contract is clearly classifiable in sub clause (zzzza) of clause (105) of section 65 and there is no other sub clause where this service could be classified. Section 65A cannot be pressed into service for determining the further categorization under the said sub clause (zzzza). The works contract of activities 3 & 4 are also not covered by (d) & (e) of (ii) of Explanation of (zzzza). The works contract of activities 3 & 4 are held to be covered under (c) of (ii) of (zzzza) in section 65 (105) and the questions posed at serial nos. 1 and 3 have to be answered in the affirmative.

Ruling of the Authority:

(1) The applicant is liable to pay service tax under section 65 (105) (zzzza) of the Finance Act, 1994 on the services provided by them in the course of execution of the works contract referred to in activity no. 3.

(2) While discharging duty liability on the service provided in the course of execution of works contract in activity no. 3, the applicant can choose either of the alternative methods of payment i.e. under the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006 as amended by Notification no.29/2007-ST dt.22.5.2007 or under the Works Contract (Composition Scheme for payment of Service Tax) Rules, 2007. The above two routes of payment are mutually exclusive.

(3) The applicant is liable to pay service tax under section 65 (105) (zzzza) of the Finance Act, 1994 on the services provided by them in the course of execution of the works contract referred to in activity no. 4.

(4) The applicant would be liable to pay service tax under section 65 (105) (zzzza) of the Finance Act, 1994 on the services provided in the course of execution of works contract referred to in activity 4 even when the applicant sub contracts the construction work to another contractor who discharges his service tax liability. However, no views are expressed on the quantum of tax liability in such a situation.

(Click here for full text of Ruling AIT-2008-128-AAR)

Related New: