Appeal successful as administrative expenses not deemed as real estate agent services

The appeal challenges the order confirming the demand of service tax for specific periods under the 'real estate agent' category. The appellant, engaged in real estate projects, charged administrative expenses for record correction, not real estate agent services. The Tribunal, considering subsequent decisions and distinguishing earlier rulings, found that the appellant did not provide real estate agent services. Consequently, the Commissioner's order confirming the demand was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

---

---

Issues involved:
The appeal challenges the order confirming the demand of service tax for the period 2004-05 to 2007-08, 01.04.2008 to 30.09.2008, and 01.04.2012 to 31.05.2012 under the category of 'real estate agent' as defined under the Finance Act, 1994.

Details of the Judgment:

1. The appellant, engaged in construction and development of real estate projects, charges 'administrative' expenses when a buyer transfers ownership to another person. The appellant argues that these charges are for correcting records and not for 'real estate agent' services.

2. The dispute centers on the 'administrative charges' collected by the appellant. The Department contends that the appellant provided real estate agent services, relying on a previous Tribunal decision in the appellant's case.

3. The appellant argues that subsequent Tribunal decisions have distinguished the earlier decision, indicating that the demand should be set aside as the appellant did not provide real estate agent services.

4. The Tribunal notes that the earlier decision has been distinguished by various Benches, supporting the appellant's position that no real estate agent service was provided.

5. The appellant merely charged administrative/transfer charges for updating ownership details in its records, not involved in direct sale or purchase of real estate. The Tribunal refers to a similar case where such charges were not taxed as 'Real Estate Agent Service.'

6. The Tribunal concludes that the appellant did not provide real estate agent services, as confirmed by the subsequent decisions of the Tribunal. The Commissioner's order confirming the demand is set aside, and the appeal is allowed.

---