Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2017 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (9) TMI 1071 - AT - Service TaxManagement consultancy service - real estate agent service - demand of service tax - Held that: - On careful consideration of the scope of the agreement, we note that there is no consultancy service with reference to improvement of organizational efficiency of the client - It is clear that transfer of know-how by the respondent to the client does not amount to management or business consultant service, as seen from the terms of agreement in the present case - reliance placed on the decision of the Tribunal in Castrol Ltd. Vs. CCE, Raigad [2007 (3) TMI 140 - CESTAT, MUMBAI], where it was held that said activity can't covered under 'MCS'. Real Estate Agent Service - Held that: - There is nothing in the show cause notice or the relied upon documents to show that the respondent acted in a capacity of “real estate agent” between the earlier owner and the new buyer of the flat. The changes made in the records of the respondent are not causative factors for such sale or purchase - no service tax liability can be confirmed against the respondent under this category. Maintenance or repair service - Held that: - Advice or consultancy rendered by the appellant is not covered by maintenance or repair of immovable property. Admittedly the appellants are not involved in any activity of management, maintenance or repair. Maintenance charges attributable to the money collected from the owners of plot/flat/office for maintenance of the said properties - Held that: - the entire building which was maintained and managed by the appellant/assessee for a consideration is for the collective benefit of the owners of the individual units in the building. Each owner is collectively and severely got the benefit of said maintenance - the consideration paid by the owners of flat/plot/office is liable to service tax - demand upheld. Time limitation - Held that: - the appellant/assessee is a well organized large scale real estate developer. As such, it is not tenable for them to submit that they were not fully aware of the legal implications of various service tax entries applicable to them - there is no bonafide belief in the present case for non-payment of service tax in time - extended period rightly invoked. Appeal dismissed - decided partly in favor of assessee.
|