Case nº Ruling No. AAR/ST/17/2016 in Application No. AAR/44/ST/30/2015 of AAR Cases, July 01, 2016 (case In Re : Raghava Estates and Properties Ltd. Vs)

Judge:For Appellant: Shri Y.S. Reddy, Advocate and For Respondents: Shri Amresh Jain, Authorised Representative
President:V.S. Sirpurkar, Chairman, Shri S.S. Rana and R.S. Shukla, Members
Defense:Customs
Resolution Date:July 01, 2016
Issuing Organization:AAR Cases
 
FREE EXCERPT

Court Information AAR Cases
Citation 2016 (45) STR 573 (AAR)
Judgment Date 01-Jul-2016
Party Details In Re : Raghava Estates and Properties Ltd. Vs 
Case No Ruling No. AAR/ST/17/2016 in Application No. AAR/44/ST/30/2015
Judges V.S. Sirpurkar, Chairman, Shri S.S. Rana and R.S. Shukla, Members
Advocates For Appellant: Shri Y.S. Reddy, Advocate and For Respondents: Shri Amresh Jain, Authorised Representative
Acts Customs

Ruling:

1. The applicant is a builder. It is a public limited company. The admission is opposed.

The first objection which is taken by the Department was that it is only a private limited company which is entitled for exemption. That does not appear to be a fact. There is a Notification No. 4/2013-S.T., dated 1st March, 2013 which entitles even the public companies to apply and to be entitled for the exemption.

2. Therefore, the first objection about the applicant not being a proper applicant is rejected.

3. The activity which is proposed to be carried out is to build a house for an individual that is only for a single house for the customer. We had intended to admit this matter earlier, however, considering that the controversy is extremely narrow, we are proceeding to give its ruling straightaway with the consent of both the parties.

4. As has already been stated in the earlier paragraphs, the activity is that of building a single house for the customer, admittedly that activity is exempt from the Service Tax. The objection which seems to have been raised is that the applicant company would also obtain the necessary sanctions from the ''Gram Panchayat'' for being able to construct the house. This amounts to a separate service and, if it is separate, if it is to be acquired by a separate agreement, it would attract the Service Tax. The contention is undoubtedly right that if there is an independent agreement only for the purposes of obtaining the necessary sanctions from the local self-government including the ''Gram Panchayat'' then it would undoubtedly amount to an independent service. However, in this case, the learned Counsel asserts that it is going to be a ''bundled service'' meaning thereby that the company will obtain the necessary sanctions and then will build an individual house. The learned Counsel asserts that there will be no independent agreement regarding...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL