2004 (11) TMI 8 - Commissioner - Service Tax

Service Tax Architect Valuation of immovable property - Services of architect as valuer do not plunge within extent of Consulting Engineer

Summary

Issues:
Whether the services provided by the appellant as a valuer of immovable property are liable for service tax under the category of "Consulting Engineer" as per the Finance Act, 1994.

Analysis:
The appellant, a proprietary concern, argued that as an architect, he is not covered under the definition of Consulting Engineer. The appellant contended that the matter is time-barred, as the registration was obtained in Nov. 98, and the show cause notice was issued on 16-3-2004. Furthermore, the appellant claimed that the adjudicating authority exceeded the scope of the show cause notice by confirming the demand under Consulting Engineer services instead of Architect services. The appellant requested a final disposal of the matter on merit.

The key issue in this case is whether the services provided by the appellant, engaged as a valuer of immovable property, are subject to service tax under the category of "Consulting Engineer" as defined in the Finance Act, 1994. The definition of Consulting Engineer under Sec. 65(31) of the Finance Act specifies the essential criteria to be met, including being a professionally qualified Engineer or an Engineering Firm, providing advice or consultancy directly or indirectly to a client in one or more disciplines of Engineering.

The appellant, being a B. Arch degree holder, is an Architect by profession, not a Consulting Engineer. Trade Notice No. 1/98-S.T. clarified that architects are not included in the scope of Consulting Engineer for Service Tax levy. Additionally, the decision of the Hon'ble CESTAT, South Zonal Bench, Bangalore in a similar case emphasized that advice related to immovable property valuation by an engineer falls under the realm of "engineering discipline," making it subject to service tax as a Consulting Engineer service.

The judgment concludes that services rendered by a professionally qualified engineer or engineering firm as a valuer of immovable property are considered Consulting Engineer services under the Finance Act, 1994. As the appellant is an Architect and not a Consulting Engineer, the services provided do not fall within the scope of Consulting Engineer services. Therefore, the impugned order confirming the demand under Consulting Engineer services is set aside, and the appeal is allowed.