SHRIRAM PROPERTIES LTD. REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY SRI. V. SRIDHARAN S/O LATE S. VENKATACHALAIAH Vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX AND UNION OF INDIA (UOI) REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is an assessee liable to tax under the provisions of the Finance Act 32 of 1994 [for short 'the Act'] as amended from time to time and the activity which is subjected to tax in so far as petitioner is concerned is construction of complexes in terms of the charging section of the Act i.e., 5% of the value of services is subjected to tax on this kind of service.

(2.) THE present writ petition is in the context of the issuance of the exemption notification No. 1/2006 -Service Tax dated 1 -3 -2006 [copy at Annexure -C] under which certain concession is extended to various classes of service providers including the service provider in construction of complex activities. But, unfortunately for the petitioner, the concession/exemption comes with a condition. A particular condition with which the petitioner is aggrieved with is the proviso to the Notification which reads as under: Provided that this notification shall not apply in cases, where -

(3.) THE petitioner has approached this Court seeking relief on various grounds, inter alia, that it is one which has the effect of enhancing the tax liability of the petitioner; that the notification cannot create an artificial liability on the petitioner to create a liability even in respect of value of goods involved in the activity by not confining to the service component of the value of the construction; that it also brings about an artificial classification, in the sense that whereas those who have not availed of the CENVAT credit facilities are given the benefit of this Notification, those who have availed of the CENVAT credit facilities are deprived of the benefit of this notification and therefore the notification is discriminatory, bad in law, unconstitutional and therefore the proviso which brings about such an effect on persons like the petitioner should be declared to be so and only the proviso should be struck down etc.,.