SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

MATHEW JOHN, ARCHANA WADHWA
Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur – Appellant
Versus
Vee Aar Developers (P. ) Ltd. – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Amresh Jain,Dharmendra Srivastava

ORDER

Mathew John, Technical Member - In these proceedings, three appeals filed by Revenue against three different respondents involving the same issue during the period 16.6.05 to 25.3.06 are being considered.

2. The Respondents constructed residential complexes on their land and sold the residential units in such complexes to customers. Before doing the construction activity, they entered into agreement for sale of residential units and also took advances from their prospective customers. They did not pay any service tax on the activity based on the reasoning that the building was being constructed on their own land and hence the activity of construction was for their own benefit and as such, it could not be considered as a service rendered to the prospective customers.

3. Revenue was of the view that such activity was undertaken for the benefit of prospective buyers against the consideration received and the respondent should have paid service tax on such activity under the heading "construction of complex" made taxable under section 65(105)(zzzh) of Finance Act, 1994. Revenue issued show-cause notices for recovery of service tax short paid for the period 16.6.05 to 25.3.06. After

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top