Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2023 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (6) TMI 461 - AT - Service TaxLevy of Service Tax - administrative charges - According to the appellant it is not required to pay any service tax under the category of real estate agent service, while according to the Department the appellant rendered real estate agent service - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the appellant has merely charged administrative charges/ transfer charges for incorporating in its record the name of the new buyer consequent upon any sale of the property by the earlier buyer. The appellant is not involved in any sale or purchase of real estate per se nor is the appellant involved in introducing the prospective buyer to any seller. The sale-purchase transaction takes place between two independent parties without the involvement of the appellant. In this connection it would be useful to refer to the decision of the Tribunal in M/S BESTECH INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE NEW DELHI. [2019 (3) TMI 867 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] wherein the appellant, a real estate developer, had received administrative charges for change in name of the ownership in its records. After referring to the definition of ‘real estate agent’, ‘real estate consultant’ and ‘taxability of any service’ provided by a real estate agent in relation to a real estate, the Tribunal referred to the earlier decision of the Tribunal in CST, NEW DELHI VERSUS M/S ANSAL PROPERTIES AND INFRASTRUCTURES LTD. [2017 (9) TMI 1071 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] wherein the decision of the Tribunal rendered in the appellant’s own case M/S. AJAY ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. VERSUS C.S.T., DELHI [2016 (1) TMI 848 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] was distinguished and reliance was placed on the decision of the Tribunal in Ansal Properties and Infrastructure. Since the decision rendered in the own case of the appellant has been considered and distinguished by subsequent Benches of the Tribunal and it has been held that real estate agent service is not provided in such circumstances it has to be held that the appellant has not rendered real estate agent service. It is, therefore, not possible to sustain the order passed by the Commissioner. The order passed by the Commissioner is, accordingly, set aside and the appeal is allowed.
|