Thursday, 23 June 2016

Does the Buyer Of Under Construction Housing Projects Really Get Respite from Paying Service Tax

The recent judgement delivered by the Delhi High Court on 03of June 2016 on the subject is trending in the Social Media. Major English and Hindi Dailies have even made this as front page news declaring prominently that the home buyers of under construction housing project are exempted from paying Service Tax. In fact many buyers taking shelter of the said judgment and news report have even approached the builders seeking refund of the Service tax that had been paid by them in the past, completely ignoring the fact that Service Tax gets deposited with the Government and builders do not retain them.

It is not in doubt that  the controversy involved in the Petition decided by the Delhi High Court was related to the question whether the consideration paid by a flat buyers to a builder/promoter/developer for acquiring a flat in a complex, which is under construction can be subjected to levy of Service Tax. The petitioner had claimed that the Parliament does not have the legislative competence to levy Service Tax on such transaction.

The issue relates to the levy of service tax by the Central Government in terms of Section 65 (105) Clause (zzzh) relating to levy of service tax on construction of complex and Clause (zzzzu) relating to Service tax on preferential location charges, these provisions are reproduced herein below:-

S 65 (105) “Taxable Service” means any service provided or to be provided:-

xxxxxxx-(zzzh) to any person, by any other person, in relation to construction of complex

[Explanation:
For the purpose of this sub-clause, construction of a complex which is intended for sale, wholly or partly, By a builder or any person by a builder or any person authorized by the builder before, during or after construction (except in cases for which no sum is received from or on behalf of the prospective buyer by the builder or a person authorized by the builder before the grant of completion certificate by the authority competent to issue such certificate under any law for the time being in force) shall be deemed to be service provided by the builder to the buyer;

S.65 (105) "Taxable Service" means any service provided or to be provided:-

complex, the benefit of which is available to a prospective buyer.

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx (zzzzu) to a buyer, by a builder of a residential complex, or a commercial complex, or any other person authorised by such builder, for providing preferential location or development of such complex but does not include services covered under sub- clauses (zzg), (zzq), (zzzh) and in relation to parking place.

Explanation.--For the purposes of this sub-clause, ―preferential locationǁ means any location having extra advantage which attracts extra payment over and above the basic sale price

While interpreting the explanation to clause (zzzh), the High Court observed that it expands the scope of the taxable service as envisaged in the clause. By legal fiction construction of a complex which is intended for sale by a builder or any person authorized by him before, during or after construction is deemed to be a service provided by the builder to the buyer. The object of imposing the levy of service tax in relation to construction of a complex is essentially to tax the aspect of services involved in construction of a complex, the benefit of which is available to a prospective buyer.

The High Court in the said judgement has observed that the contract between a buyer and a builder in development and sale of a complex is a composite one. The arrangement between the buyer and the developer is not for procurement of services simplicitor. Such agreement is essentially one of purchase and sale of developed property but by a legislative fiction such arrangement which have been entered into prior to completion of the project and/or construction of unit are imputed with a character of a service contract. The Court has went ahead and observed that the legislative competence of the parliament to tax the services involved under such arrangement between buyer and builder cannot be disputed. The only reservation expressed by the court is with respect to the mechanism to ascertain the value of the services component which is subject of the levy. Clearly service tax cannot be levied on the value of undivided share of land acquired by a buyer of a dwelling unit or on the value of goods which are incorporated in the project.

While examining the various provisions of Service Tax (determination of Value) Rules 2006 Court held that the rules do not cater to determination of value of services in case of a composite contract which also involves sale of land. The gross consideration charged by a builder/promoter of a project from a buyer would not only include element of goods and services but also the value of undivided share of land which would be acquired by the buyer.

From the above discussions it is evident that the Court in the much talked about judgement does not declare the charging section unconstitutional, it rather recognizes the fact that the Parliament has the legislative competence to levy service tax in such cases. The only basis on which the court has declared the levy to be invalid is the lack of machinery for excluding the non-service component from the taxable services covered.

In such situation, the judgement cannot be interpreted to give complete respite to the buyers from service tax as the Government can very well come out with amendments to the Rules and provide for specific machinery for excluding the non-service component from the taxable services covered. Needless to mention that the Government can also chose to challenge the judgement before the Supreme Court seeking reversal of the finding of the High Court. Further, the challenge against the clause (zzzzu) relating to service tax on Preferential Location Charges have also been disallowed by the Court.

By:-
Shambhu Sharan
E: shambhu@singhania.in

Wednesday, 8 June 2016

Private Security Industry-Compliance with Labor Laws and PSARA v. Profitability?



India is persistently exposed to formidable security challenges and there is an increasing threat from the rising crime rate and escalating terrorism. On the other hand, police-public ratio in India is 136.42 police personnel to protect every 1 lakh citizens1 which is a huge gap generally bridged by Private Security Guards (PSGs) being our first line of defense. 

According to the FICCI-Grant Thornton report, the security services industry is becoming employment generating machinery, currently employing 7 million people and growing at a rate of 20%. Its value is expected to increase from INR 40,000 crore in 2014 to INR 80,000 crore by the end of the year 2020. It is also estimated that the Indian private security industry will generate about 5 million additional jobs by 2020.2

The governing mechanism for PSGs is provided under Central Act-The Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005 (the “Act”), also called as PSARA. The act allows every state to formulate different rules for implementation of PSARA. Some states have formulated their own set of rules including Delhi Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Rules, 2007; Haryana Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Rules, 2007; Uttar Pradesh Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Rules, 2007; etc.

The Ministry of Labour and Employment issued a notification defining “Skilled Work” as “Work which involves skill or competence acquired through experience on the job or through training as an apprentice in a technical or vocational institute and the performance of which calls for initiative and judgment.”3The Act clearly stipulates a minimum of 160 hours of training to describe someone as trained workers in multiple sections of the Act.

The PSGs are involved in performing various skilled functions like access control using baggage x-ray machine and metal detection equipment. Therefore, necessary changes should be made in the Central and State Minimum Wages Acts.

In case of armed PSGs and supervisors, it is being proposed that they should be classified as highly-skilled workers. The Ministry of Labour and Employment issued a notification defining “Highly-Skilled Work”as “Work calling for a high degree of perfection &full competence acquired through intensive technical or professional training or work experience for long years and requires a worker to assume full responsibility for his judgment ordecision.”4The definition has qualified training with the word “intensive” which means that there must exist a difference in the training to be received by a skilled worker and a highly-skilled worker.

Considering the growth prospects and hence projected demand of employable human resource in this industry it is important that the job as a PSG becomes a respectable vocation with secured job prospects. Need of the hour is to make the necessary amendment and classify them as skilled workers so that the PSGs stop suffering from lower wages and lack of self-respect. At the same time the government will have to ensure that this amendment does not end up affecting the viability of this high employment sector.

By:
Ravi Singhania
www.singhania.in