2014 (10) TMI 683 - AT - Service Tax

Waiver of pre deposit - Real Estate Agent service - Held that - Assessee had entered into agreement with four persons for purchase of the land. However subsequently he did not purchase the land but with the four persons with whom he had entered into agreement the land was sold to M/s. Melmont Construction (P) Ltd. In the sale deed Assessee was also shown as one of the vendors. From the grounds discussed above it becomes quite clear that Assessee was also a seller along with other four. How he became a part of the selling group is a mystery which we can solve and may be find out at the time of final hearing only. At this stage since as per the records and as per the statement given by him without any contrary evidence he was also a part of the sale deed it may not be appropriate to consider him as Real Estate Agent - Stay granted.

Summary

Issues: Liability of the appellant for payment of Service Tax on Real Estate Agent service.

Analysis:
In the first appeal, Shri D. Rajesh was involved in an agreement for the purchase of land with four persons, but the land was eventually sold to a different entity. Despite being shown as a vendor in the sale deed, the tribunal found it inappropriate to consider him a Real Estate Agent due to the lack of evidence regarding his role in the sale transaction. The tribunal highlighted the mystery surrounding his involvement and deferred a conclusive decision until further evidence is presented during the final hearing.

Regarding the second case, Shri C.K. Satish entered into an agreement for land purchase with a church, but later transferred his rights to Purvankara for a higher amount. The tribunal observed that Shri C.K. Satish essentially sold his right to sell the land, leading to the conclusion that he should not be classified as a Real Estate Agent. Based on the discussion of facts, the tribunal did not find sufficient grounds to consider either Shri D. Rajesh or Shri C.K. Satish as Real Estate Agents prima facie. Consequently, the tribunal waived the pre-deposit requirement and granted a stay against recovery during the appeal proceedings.