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

Refined or white sugar, imported upto 31st December 2010 exempted from Customs duty-Customs Tariff Notification No.8 excise exemption notification for Jammu & Kashmir modified-Central Excise Tariff Notification No.1 Air India may lower retirement age to 55 to cut cost Board of Approval to decide fate of denotification of Essar's Hazira SEZ on 11th February Revenue's comments on 1st Discussion Paper on GST-click on the link below for details SC rules service of notice on the assessee under Section 143(2) within the prescribed period of time is a pre-requisite for framing the block assessment under Chapter XIV-B of the Income Tax Act, 1961-AIT-2010-43-SC HC rules assessee is entitled to benefit under Income Tax on delayed payment of PF if the payment is made before the return is filed-AIT-2010-42-HC Authority for Advance Ruling rules the amount received by the foreign company from the Government of Tamil Nadu under the contract is essentially in the nature of “fees for technical services” within the meaning of Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with Article 12.4 of DTAA and cannot be regarded as consideration for the sale of designs and drawings-AIT-2010-38-AAR Authority for Advance Ruling rules payment received by the applicant from VARs (“third party re-sellers”) on account of supplies of software products to the end-customers (from whom the licence fee is collected and appropriated by VAR) does not result in income in the nature of royalty to the applicant and moreover payments received by the applicant cannot be taxed as business profits in India in the absence of permanent establishment as envisaged by Article 7 of the India-Japan Tax Treaty-AIT-2010- 36-AAR lending or borrowing money between two associated enterprises comes within the ambit of international transaction and whether the same is at arms length price has to be considered-The question of rate of interest on the borrowing loan is an integral part of arms length price redetermination in this context-AIT-2010-37-ITAT Export and Import of Currency-RBI Circular No.30 HC rules a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution would be maintainable for questioning reopening of the assessment in a case such as this where the preconditions for the exercise of the power have not been fulfilled-recourse to the power under Section 147 cannot be sustained on a mere change of opinion, there being no failure of the assessee to disclose fully and truly, all material facts necessary for assessment-AIT-2010-35-HC Definitive Anti dumping duty imposed on import of Carbon Black used in rubber applications falling under sub heading 2803 00 10, originating in, or exported from, Australia, China PR, Russia and Thailand-Customs Tariff Notification No.6 Tariff Value for import of Brass scrap is 3597 and for poppy seeds 4392-Customs Non-Tariff Notification No. 10 Adjustment of “Advance Tax in respect of Fringe Benefits” for Assessment Year 2010-11 against “Advance Tax”-Income Tax Circular No.2 CBDT clarifies it is the choice of the assessee whether to file an objection before the Dispute Resolution panel against the draft assessment order or not to exercise this option and file an appeal later before CIT (Appeals) against the assessment order passed by the AO

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: