2018 (2) TMI 1046 - AT - Service Tax

Real Estate Agent service - service tax was on the charges collected for change of name of the owner of the property in the residential complex originally built and promoted by the appellant - Held that - the ld. AR categorically submitted that nowhere in the appeal papers, it is clearly brought out that the appellant is owners of the residential complex, which was sold to various buyers and they continue to maintain records of the owners of the property. No such finding has been recorded anywhere - matter remanded to the Original Authority for a fresh re-look mainly to the effect that as to whether there is a change in the facts of the case as pleaded by the ld. Consultant for the appellant - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Issues: Dispute over service tax liability of the appellant under Real Estate Agent Service.

Analysis:
1. The dispute in this case revolves around the service tax liability of the appellant under the category of Real Estate Agent Service as per Section 65(105)(v) of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant was held liable for service tax amounting to &8377; 9,57,843 for charges collected for changing the name of the property owner in a residential complex originally built and promoted by the appellant. The appellant collected transfer charges when a property owner sold their property to another person and requested a name change in the records maintained by the appellant. This amount was considered taxable income under Real Estate Agent service.

2. The appellant's consultant admitted that a previous Tribunal order had considered the activity taxable in the appellant's own case. The Tribunal had held that the appellant, being a Real Estate Agent registered under Real Estate Agent service, was providing services related to real estate transactions. The consultant argued that the appellant was not acting as a Real Estate Agent or Consultant in the property sales, but they had not adequately defended this position in the previous order. The consultant sought to establish with evidence that the appellant was not acting as a Real Estate Agent and did not earn income under that category.

3. The respondent's representative contended that given the previous Tribunal finding in the appellant's case, there was no scope to alter the findings in the current appeal. However, the Tribunal noted that the appellant had not clearly demonstrated in the appeal papers that they were the owners of the residential complex sold to buyers and maintained records of property owners. This lack of evidence led the Tribunal to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Original Authority for a fresh review. The Original Authority was directed to verify the supporting evidence presented by the appellant to determine if there had been any change in the facts of the case, allowing the appellant a fair opportunity to present their case during the reassessment.

4. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a thorough re-examination of the facts to ascertain whether the appellant's activities truly fell under the purview of Real Estate Agent Service. The decision to remand the case for further investigation was based on the lack of clarity regarding the appellant's role as a Real Estate Agent and the absence of conclusive evidence supporting their position. The appellant was granted the opportunity to provide additional evidence to support their claim that they were not engaged in Real Estate Agent activities, ensuring a fair and comprehensive adjudication of the matter by the Original Authority.

← Previous Next →