Architect valuation outside consulting engineer service, so service tax was not payable under the taxable category.

Valuation of immovable property by an architect did not fall within consulting engineer service because the taxable category was confined to services rendered by a professionally qualified engineer. Acceptance of the valuation by the recipient did not change the provider's professional status or bring the activity within the tax net. The distinction between architecture and engineering was also recognised in the Trade Notice relied upon, supporting the view that architects are outside the scope of consulting engineer service. Service tax was therefore not payable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent's activity of valuation of immovable property by an architect fell within the taxable category of consulting engineer service.

Analysis: The respondent was not a professionally qualified engineer but an architect. The taxable service in question was confined to services provided by a professionally qualified engineer. The fact that the service recipient accepted the valuation did not alter the nature of the provider's qualification. The Trade Notice relied upon also supported the view that architecture and engineering are separate disciplines and that architects do not fall within the scope of consulting engineer service.

Conclusion: The activity did not amount to consulting engineer service and service tax was not payable.

---