Real estate agent not liable for service tax on administrative charges; penalty deemed inapplicable.

The tribunal found that the real estate agent's administrative/transfer charges were liable for service tax as they were related to real estate services. The extended period for penalty invocation was deemed inapplicable due to the appellant's bona fide belief, leading to the penalty's non-sustainability. The appellant was determined eligible for cum tax benefit, resulting in the appeal being allowed for re-computation of demand and penalties by the primary adjudicating authority, with the appellant granted a hearing during the process.

---

---

Issues:
1. Liability of service tax on administrative/transfer charges by a real estate agent.
2. Whether the extended period for invoking penalty is applicable.
3. Eligibility of the appellant for cum tax benefit.

Analysis:
1. The judgment dealt with the liability of service tax on administrative/transfer charges by a real estate agent. The appellant contended that these charges were not related to real estate transactions and thus not liable to service tax. However, the Department Representative argued that as a registered real estate agent, the appellant provided services related to real estate, making the charges includible in the assessable value for service tax under 'Real Estate Agent' service. The tribunal found that the charges were indeed for services in relation to real estate, falling under the purview of 'Real Estate Agent' service.

2. Regarding the applicability of the extended period for invoking penalty, the appellant claimed a bona fide belief that the charges were not taxable. The tribunal noted that the appellant maintained statutory records but held that there was a wilful misstatement/suppression of facts to evade service tax. Citing legal precedents, the tribunal emphasized that a bona fide belief could negate the need for approaching the Revenue for clarification. Ultimately, the tribunal found that the extended period was not invocable, leading to the non-sustainability of the penalty under Section 78.

3. The judgment addressed the appellant's eligibility for cum tax benefit. The tribunal determined that the appellant could benefit from the cum tax provision based on the circumstances and relevant legal provisions. Consequently, the tribunal allowed the appeal, remanding the case to the primary adjudicating authority for re-computation of the demand and penalties. The appellant was granted an opportunity to be heard during the de novo adjudication process.

---