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

Reliance's Tax Advisor & ex-IRS Officer Sandeep Tandon dies of cancer Bad News for NDT-Delhi High Court decides to hear paternity suit against Tiwari filed by Rohit Shekhar, who claims that he is biological son of ND Tiwari Haryana Assembly okays Special Economic Zone (Amendment) Bill, 2010, which seeks to provide for refund of stamp duty on registration of land collected from developers of SEZs in the state before notification of SEZ Microsoft loses 106 million dollar Patent verdict Sensex hits 17500 Points in early trading FM says inflation may hit double digit in March Authority for Advance Ruling rules the payments made to ABB Research Ltd., Zurich towards the applicant's share of the cost incurred in respect of R&D activities are not liable to be taxed under the Income Tax Act, 1961 as business income in the absence of permanent establishment in India, having regard to Art.7 of the Tax Treaty- Nor can it be subjected to tax as royalty or fees for technical services under Article 12 of the Treaty-AIT-2010-94-AAR Tariff Value for import of Brass Scrap is 3801 and for poppy seeds 4256-Customs Non-Tariff Notification No. 20 No approval for procurement of service “Rental” of immovable property for office outside the Special Economic Zone/FTWZ can be given-SEZ Instruction No. 49 on Clarifications on FTWZ issues Consolidated list of default authorized operations which can be undertaken by the developer/approved co-developer by default from the date of notification-SEZ Instruction No.50 Himachal Government hikes VAT from 4 per cent to 5 per cent on all items, except edible oils and foodgrains Authority for Advance Ruling rules no capital gains accrued or arose at the time of conversion of partnership firm into a private limited company under Part IX of the Companies Act and therefore, notwithstanding the non-compliance with clause (d) of proviso to Section 47(xiii) of the Income Tax Act, by reason of premature transfer of shares, the said company is not liable to pay capital gains tax-AIT-2010-93-AAR Authority for Advance Ruling rules if the purchasers are non-residents other than the applicant, the applicant is liable to pay tax in India on the amount received by it for the support services rendered through the branch office in India-AIT-2010-92 -AAR Jurisdiction of Dispute Resolution Panel-Income Tax Order No.3 Employment of washing process in the manufacture of agglomerates etc from imported plastic waste and scrap-SEZ Instruction No.48 Haryana Government imposes surcharge ranging from 0.25 per cent to 0.7 per cent on VAT Service Tax Notification No. 17/2010 which exempts the taxable service providing packaged or canned software, intended for single use and packed accordingly amended-Service Tax Notification No.18 Procurement, Import and Export of Prohibited and Restricted Goods by SEZ Units-SEZ Instruction No. 47 Authority for Advance Ruling rules the amounts received/receivable by Technopromexport from NTPC under contract for Offshore supply of all plant and equipment including mandatory spares are not liable to tax in India under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and DTAA between India and Russia-AIT-2010-79-AAR

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: