“Flat Purchase Agreement” not subject to service tax: HC

the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the second reassessment proceedings were not validly initiated and thereby quashing the reassessment proceedings-the proceedings initiated by the AO for the second time under Section 147 is barred by limitation-even the proviso to Section 147 does not come into play on the facts of the case-AIT-2010-373-HC Even if the goods belong to same entry, manufacture does take place if new identifiable/marketable goods known in market emerge due to operation conducted-the process of ironing applied to the stiched brassieres prior to their packing was a process incidental to the completion of the brassieres as a manufactured product-process of purification and filtration being incidental or ancillary to the manufacture of a marketable product, the Respondent was entitled to Modvat credit on the inputs involved-AIT-2010-370-HC Larger Bench of CESTAT rules the Tribunal has ample power to condone the delay in filing the appeal including the one filed under section 35 E (4)-AIT-2010-372-CESTAT Corruption in IRS takes its toll-Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Dhananjay Kumar arrested by CBI in Mumbai-Joint Commissioner of Customs & Excise Hemant Kothikar also arrested by CBI FM directs expediting of Cadre Restructuring in CBDT & CBEC Tariff Value for import of Brass Scrap is 3924-Customs Non-Tariff Notification No. 78 Chief Justice of Gauhati High Court Justice Ranjan Gogoi to be Chief Justice of Punjab & Haryana High Court Anti-dumping duty on imports of Acrylic Fibre originating in, or exported from Japan and Belarus-Customs Tariff Notification No.85 Prescribing SION for new product “Propylene” under Chemical & Allied Products Group-DGFT PN 7 Inclusion of Finished Leather in the Focus Product Scheme of FTP-DGFT PN 6 Exchange Rate for imported goods is Rs 47.25 per US Dollar and Rs 60.35 per EURO-Exchange Rate for export goods is Rs 46.30 per US Dollar and Rs 58.70 per EURO-Customs Non-Tariff Notification No. 77-Click on Exchange Rate for details Anti Dumping Duty under the Notification No.15/2007 is not applicable to Spandex Yarn (Elastomeric yarn)-Customs Circular No.30 Import of goods under Notification No.13/2010 for Commonwealth Games, 2010-Customs Circular No.31 Larger Bench of CESTAT rules charges towards pre-delivery inspection and after-sale-service by dealers from buyers of the cars to be included in the assessable value of cars for payment of excise duty-AIT-2010-366-CESTAT merely because there was non accounting of goods, penalty was technical and inference of clandestine removal was not called for-AIT-2010-365-HC ITAT rules provision for doubtful debts and provision for standard debts are to be taken into consideration for computation of book profit u/s. 115JB of the IT Act-AIT-2010-361-ITAT HC rules slitting of aluminum foils into customized width, mounting the same on the printing machine and thereafter printing the necessary text thereon is covered for 80IB benefit as it falls within the ambit of the term “produce”-AIT-2010-363-HC Definitive Anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of Coumarin, originating in, or exported from China-Customs Tariff Notification No. 82 Special Bench of ITAT Ruling-where a forward contract is entered into by the assessee to sell the foreign currency at an agreed price at a future date falling beyond the last date of accounting period, the loss is incurred to the assessee on account of evaluation of the contract on the last date of the accounting period i.e. before the date of maturity of the forward contract-AIT-2010-355-ITAT-SB

JUDGMENTS

CENTRAL EXCISE

CUSTOMS

exchange rate

SERVICE TAX

INCOME TAX

VAT

FINANCE ACTS

FINANCE BILLS

EOU STPI

SEZ

DGFT

RBI

NTT

RESOURCES

Email | Print

“Flat Purchase Agreement” not subject to service tax: HC

AIT News Network

GAUHATI. Giving a breather to Real Estate Developers on whose neck the sword of service tax demands on agreement for sale of flats was hanging consequent to Advance Ruling in case of Hare Krishna Developers AIT-2008-127-AAR; Gauhati High Court vide a recent ruling AIT-2008-213–HC has ruled that “flat purchase agreement” is not subject to service tax. Any advance, made by a prospective buyer, or deposit received by the petitioner-company, is against consideration of sale of the flat/building to such prospective buyer and not for the purpose of obtaining “service” from the petitioner-company.

The High Court ruled as under:

The circular, dated August 1, 2006 is binding on the department and this circular makes it more than abundantly clear that when a builder, promoter or developer undertakes construction activity for its own self, then, in such cases, in the absence of relationship of “service provider” and “service recipient”, the question of providing “taxable service” to any person by any other person does not arise at all. In the present case too, the materials placed by the writ petitioners clearly show that the construction activities, which the petitioners have been undertaking, are in respect of the petitioners' own work and it is only the completed construction work, which is sold by the petitioner-company to the buyers, who may have made agreements for sale before the construction had actually started or during the progress of the construction activity or at the end or completion of the construction activity. Any advance, made by a prospective buyer, or deposit received by the petitioner-company, is against consideration of sale of the flat/building to such prospective buyer and not for the purpose of obtaining “service” from the petitioner-company.
In the light of the various statutory definitions of “service”, one can safely define “service” as an act of helpful activity, an act of doing something useful, rendering assistance or help. Service does not involve supply of goods ; “service” rather connotes transformation of use/user of goods as a result of voluntary intervention of “service provider” and is an intangible commodity in the form of human effort. To have “service”, there must be a “service provider” rendering services to some other person(s), who shall be recipient of such “service”.
Any part of constructional activity for construction of building, which is carried out by the petitioner-company, is not a “service” rendered to any one, but an activity, which is carried out by the petitioner-company, for its own self. Since the very concept of rendering of “service” implies two entities, one, who renders the “service”, and the other, who is recipient thereof, it becomes transparent that an activity carried on by a person for himself or for his own benefit, cannot be termed as “service” rendered.
The decision of the apex court in K. Raheja Development AIT-2005-94-SC, is not applicable to the case at hand inasmuch as this decision was rendered on the facts of its own case. The petitioner-company is not shown to have undertaken any construction work for and on behalf of proposed customer/allottees and the title, in the flat/apartments so constructed, passes to the customer only on execution of sale deeds and registration thereof. Until the time the sale deed is executed, the title and interest, including the ownership and possession in the constructions made, remain with the petitioner-company. The payments made by prospective purchasers, in instalments, are aimed at facilitating purchase of the flat/premises by these probable purchaser so that they may not be required to pay whole of the price at a time. From the condition so incorporated in the relevant agreement for sale, it cannot be inferred that the petitioner-company is making construction for and on behalf of the probable allottees or purchasers.
There is no material to show that the petitioner-company constructs the flat/apartments on behalf of the prospective allottees and, hence, it cannot be said that the constructions, done by the petitioner-company, are the constructions undertaken by the petitioner-company for and on behalf of their prospective buyers/allottees. Thus, there is no “service” rendered by the petitioner-company to the prospective allottees. Similar view has been taken by the Allahabad High Court in Assotech Realty Private Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIT-2007-220-HC.

(Click here for full text of Ruling AIT-2008-213–HC)

Related News: