9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1046X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the respondent. ORDER Per: B. Ravichandran The only point of dispute in the present case is with reference to service tax liability of the appellant under the category of Real Estate Agent Service in terms of Section 65(105)(v) of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. Ld. Consultant appearing for the appellant submitted that the dispute covered the period 1.4.2009 to 30.09.2009 and the appellant was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty was considered taxable as held by the Tribunal in 2016 (42) STR 481 (Tribunal). He pleaded that the said order has not examined the actual scope of activities as it was recorded that it is an admitted fact that the appellant was a Real Estate Agent and registered under Real Estate Agent service. It was providing service in relation to the sale/purchase, leasing or renting of real estate or payi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... varying the findings in the present appeal. 5. We have heard both the sides and perused the appeal records. 6. The tax liability against the appellant was upheld in the earlier proceedings by this Tribunal, as recorded above. The prayer of the Consultant is that the said ratio cannot be continued to apply for all time. They can establish material facts to the effect that they were never acting a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd it fit and proper to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter 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. If that be the case, after verification of the supporting evidences, the Original Authority can take a fresh decision on that basis. Accordingly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
