TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1036X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... igher price for land and in any case, did not involve services to third parties - In any case, the appellant has sold the lands to the Co-operative Society at the rate of ₹ 136.36 per sqft. the same being the fixed rate of land by the statutory body. It is not the case of the Revenue that there was any extra payment/receipt as commission, which is not booked or that there was any cash transaction (on-money) involved over and above the booked amount - the appellant cannot be considered as Real Estate Agent for an amount not received since they have only acted as a ‘seller’ of the said land by virtue of Power of Attorney. The demand made under Real Estate Agent Service is unjustified - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f which an amount of ₹ 1,14,12,241/- related to developmental charges and the service tax liability thereof worked out to ₹ 9,37,518/-. 2.2 Accordingly, a Show Cause Notice dated 06.10.2008 was issued proposing to demand the above service tax liability under proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 with applicable interest under Section 75 besides proposing to impose penalties under Sections 76, 77 and 78 ibid, whereafter, the adjudicating authority vide Order-in-Original dated 11.02.2009 confirmed the same but, however he did not levy penalty under Section 76. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal before the first appellate authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order impugned herein upheld the O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d also proceedings of Registrar of Co-operative Societies (Housing), Chennai who, vide Order dated 18.07.2002, had fixed the price of the land at ₹ 136.36 per sqft., agreement dated 20.07.2002 wherein the basic cost of the land is ₹ 87.12 per sqft. whereas ₹ 49.24 per sqft. is shown to be the development cost. Ld. Advocate further submitted that the demand in the case on hand is barred by limitation. 4.3 He also placed reliance on the following judgements in support of his contentions : Sarjan Realties Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Pune-III 2014 (36) S.T.R. 877 (Tri. Mum.); C.C.E., Nashik Vs. Viraj Estates Pvt. Ltd. 2017 (5) G.S.T.L. 386 (Tri. Mum.); Saumya Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.S.T., Ahmedabad 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
