9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 300X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as contemplated under Section 65B(44) read with Section 65B(51) of the Finance Act, 1994 (for short, the 'Finance Act'); that the taxable value short declared is in a sum of Rs.87,31,62,085/-and Rs.12,44,14,177/- is short paid service tax; that the petitioner is liable to pay interest under Section 75 of the Finance Act; and that the petitioner is also liable to pay a penalty in a sum of Rs.12,44,14,177/- under Section 78(1) of the Finance Act for suppressing taxable activity and short declaring the tax payable. 2. It is seen from the records that the petitioner, who is engaged in the business of real estate development, has filed Income tax returns for the Assessment Years 2014-15 to 2016-17 declaring a gross total income of Rs.116,30,89, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er's services to RBEHWS is neither exempted nor in the negative list. The first respondent has concluded that there is mis-declaration in filing 'Nil' ST-3 returns. 4. Sri. Pradyumna G H, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner in filing additional submissions and documents, and also during the personal hearing, has placed material before the first respondent to demonstrate that if the petitioner has developed lands owned by RBEHWS, it has also entered into Joint Development Agreements with the owners of the respective lands for development of plots and has also purchased lands and transferred plots therein to the members of RBEHWS. The petitioner has entered into these multiple transactions with RBEHWS, the lan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d counsel for the respondents, submits that the petitioner's entire effort in the proceedings before the first respondent was to demonstrate that its transactions for development, purchase and transfer emanated from the Memorandum of Understanding concluded with RBEHWS and these transactions amounted to transfer of title to the plot purchasers on behalf of RBEHWS and therefore stand excluded from the definition of 'service' under Section 65B of the Finance Act. The petitioner now cannot contend that the transactions with RBEHWS, the land owners and the plot purchasers are separate transactions and therefore, the impugned Order-in-original is without jurisdiction. 7. The first respondent's opinion that the petitioner's transactions emanatin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore than Rs.16,00,00,000/- given by the housing society they had purchased the land partly in their name against JDA with the Land Owners which were transferred after development and conversion into plots, site formations, electrical work, water supply and drainage work, etc., were transferred to the Members of the Housing Society as nominated by the society. Furthermore, it is seen that the developed plots were transferred with the housing society as "Confirming Party" and the consideration for each developed plots was received by the RBEHWS was for development of land and conversion into inhabitable plots of land on which the Members can construct their houses. By virtue of the MoU, the noticee was never the actual owner of the land. Furt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
