Order date – 24 March 2023

Parties – Shrinandnagar V Co Operative Housing Society Limited Vs C.S.T.-Service Tax – Ahmedabad

Facts –

• The Appellate, Shrinandnagar V Co Operative Housing Society Limited, provided construction of complex service to its members.
• The appellant’s contention was that the service provided, being involved mutuality of interest, there is no relationship of service provider and service recipient between cooperative societies and its members therefore, the same is not liable to service tax.
• Adjudicating authority namely Commissioner, Service Tax, Ahmedabad confirmed the demand of service tax along with interest and penalties under the category of ‘Construction of Complex Service’, hence Being aggrieved by the Order-in-Original, the appellant filed the present appeal.

Issue –

• Whether the construction of complex service provided by appellant to its members of the society is liable to service tax?

Order –

• The Tribunal by considering the order of the High Court as well as the Tribunal is of the view that, the issue on merit that whether the service of construction of complex provided by the appellant’s cooperative housing society to its members is eligible to service tax or otherwise has been settled in favour of the appellant. In the Appellant’s own case Tribunal held that “any service provided by such seller in connection with the construction of residential complex till the execution of such sale deed would be in the nature of 'self- service' and consequently would not attract service tax. Further, if the ultimate owner enters into a contract for construction of a residential complex promoter/builder/developer, with who himself provides service of design, planning and construction; and after such construction the ultimate owner receives such property for his personal use, then such activity would not be subjected to service tax, because this case would fall under the exclusion provided in the definition of 'residential complex'. However, in both these situations, if services of any person like contractor, designer or a similar service provider are received, then such a person would be liable to pay service tax."
• Further, it was informed by the learned counsel that the Hon’ble High Court’s judgment has been accepted by the revenue.
• In view of the above settled position, Appeal is allowed with consequential relief if any, and the impugned order is set aside.