2025 (1) TMI 342 - AT - Service Tax

Levy of service tax - Real Estate Agent service - having sold the land which was intended to be purchased initially for a profit - HELD THAT - The very same issue in the present appellant company s case i.e. Rajni Builders Pvt Ltd. the issue in hand has been decided in RAJNI BUILDERS PVT LTD VERSUS C.C.E. S.T. -VADODARA-I 2024 (8) TMI 1448 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD whereby this tribunal held that ' in the identical nature of transaction, it was held that assessee cannot be charged with service tax under 'Real Estate Agent'.' Conclusion - The appellant's activities were not taxable under the Real Estate Agent service category. Appeal of Revenue dismissed.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal question in this judgment is whether the profit earned from the sale of land, which was initially intended for purchase, attracts the levy of service tax under the category of "Real Estate Agent" services.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents:

The legal framework revolves around the interpretation of the term "Real Estate Agent" under the service tax laws. The relevant precedents include previous judgments by the Tribunal in similar cases, such as Niliesh Patel (2023), Premium Real Estate Developers (2018 and 2020), and Rattha Holding Co. P. Ltd. (2018). These cases have established that mere trading in land does not constitute a service liable for service tax under the "Real Estate Agent" category.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning:

The court interpreted that the activity of purchasing and selling land, where profit is made, does not automatically classify the entity as a "Real Estate Agent" for service tax purposes. The Tribunal emphasized the absence of a defined consideration for the alleged service, which is a critical component for establishing a service contract and subsequent tax liability.

Key Evidence and Findings:

The Tribunal relied on the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the parties, which did not specify a fixed remuneration for any service rendered. Instead, the MoU indicated a margin or profit-sharing arrangement, which does not meet the criteria for service tax liability. The Tribunal also noted that some MoUs were not fully executed, further complicating the determination of any service tax liability.

Application of Law to Facts:

The Tribunal applied the legal principles from the precedents to the facts of the case, determining that the transactions in question were primarily trading in land. The absence of a clear service component or defined consideration meant that the transactions could not be classified under "Real Estate Agent" services for service tax purposes.

Treatment of Competing Arguments:

The Tribunal considered the arguments from the revenue department, which contended that the profit from land transactions should be taxed as a service. However, the Tribunal found these arguments unconvincing in light of the established legal principles and the nature of the transactions.

Conclusions:

The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's activities did not fall under the "Real Estate Agent" service category, and thus, the demand for service tax was unsustainable. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning:

"In order to render a transaction liable for service tax, the nexus between the consideration agreed and the service activity to be undertaken should be direct and clear."

Core Principles Established:

The judgment reinforced the principle that for a transaction to be liable for service tax, there must be a clear and direct nexus between the consideration and the service provided. The mere presence of profit in a transaction does not automatically imply a service has been rendered.

Final Determinations on Each Issue:

The Tribunal determined that the appellant's activities were not taxable under the "Real Estate Agent" service category. The revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was entitled to consequential relief in accordance with the law.

Overall, the judgment underscores the importance of clearly defined service agreements and considerations in determining service tax liabilities, particularly in the context of land transactions.