2025 (11) TMI 858 - AT - Service Tax

Transfer of land development rights not taxable as service under Section 65B(44) - appeal allowed, order quashed

M/s Vineera Colonisers Private Limited And Others Versus Additional Director General, DGGSTI And Others

CESTAT (AT) New Delhi allowed the appeal and quashed the impugned order, holding that transfer of land development rights does not constitute a taxable ... Scope of service - transfer of land development rights - whether the said transfer involves transfer of title in immovable property which stands excluded from the definition of ‘service’ under Section 65B (44) of Finance Act - HELD THAT:- The issue of transfer of development rights does not amount to rendering of services under the head of ‘development rights’ is squarely covered in favour of the assessee in various decisions - reliance can be placed in DLF Commercial Projects Corporations vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Gurugram [2019 (5) TMI 1299 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH] and Sadoday Builders Private Limited vs. Jt. Charity Commissioner, Nagpur and ors. [2011 (6) TMI 936 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]. The has distinguished the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the issue is no longer res-integra as the earlier decisions are distinguishable on facts. He submitted that in the case of DLF Commercial Projects Corporation there were three parties, the land owning companies, M/s DLF Commercial Project Corporation and M/s DLF Limited and the show cause notice was issued to DLF Commercial Projects Corporation who was not the land owning company who could transfer the land development rights whereas in the present case, the show cause notice demanding service tax on transfer of land development rights was issued to the land owning companies, the appellants herein - there are no force in the arguments of the learned Authorized Representative for the simple reason that the show cause notice itself speaks of M/s Omax Limited having been engaged in providing real estate business (developer) who were developing and marketing these projects. Further, Para 7 of the show cause notice states that from the foregoing, it appears that the transfer of land rights, as brought out in the preceding paragraphs included right to develop and/or construct and market the project for a consideration. The analogy drawn by the department that in the case of DLF there were three parties whereas in the present case there are only two does not really after the position or effect the applicability of the principles of law laid down in the earlier decisions - What is required to be ascertained the basic principles enunciated in the decisions, i.e. land development rights does not fall within the ambit of service tax. The objection raised by the revenue is unsustainable. The impugned order needs to be set-aside and is hereby quashed - Appeal allowed. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether transfer of land development rights (including rights to develop, market and sell built-up units with undivided interest in land) constitutes a 'service' chargeable to service tax under the Finance Act, 1994, or falls outside the definition of 'service' by reason of being transfer of immovable property. 2. Whether prior Tribunal and High Court authorities holding that transferable/development rights are immovable property and thus excluded from service tax under the exclusion clause of Section 65B(44) are applicable to the facts where the show-cause notices are issued to land-owning companies (as opposed to developers or third parties), and whether any factual distinction (number/identity of parties) changes the legal conclusion. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Whether transfer of land development rights is a 'service' or a transfer of immovable property excluded from service tax Legal framework: The Court examines the definition of 'service' and the exclusion for transfer of title in immovable property (Section 65B(44) of the Finance Act, 1994 and related provisos/exclusions), the concept of 'deemed service' (section 66E) relied on by the revenue, and principles defining 'immovable property' (e.g., Section 3(26) General Clauses Act and authorities interpreting benefits arising from land). Precedent treatment: The Court follows and relies on a line of precedent (including decisions of coordinate Benches and High Courts) which have held that transferable development rights (TDR)/land development rights constitute immovable property or benefits arising from land and therefore fall within the exclusion from 'service' in Section 65B(44). Those precedents include reasoning that once development rights are transferred, the land-owning entity effectively transfers undivided interest in land to purchasers in consequence of the arrangement, and such transfer is not a taxable service. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court analyses the MOU and surrounding facts and finds that (a) the MOU contemplates acquisition of land by the appellants in their name for and on behalf of the developer and that the appellants hold the land on trust for the developer; (b) the developer is empowered to market, receive payments and execute conveyance/sale deeds to purchasers; (c) consequential transfer of undivided rights in the land to purchasers follows from the arrangement and is effected by conveyance; and (d) the rights transferred are therefore benefits arising out of land or constitute immovable property. The Court reasons that where the rights transferred amount to transfer of land or benefits arising out of land, such transfers are expressly excluded from the definition of 'service' and cannot be taxed as service under the Finance Act. The Court treats the revenue's characterization (that forgoing of rights to sell/market constitutes deemed service under section 66E) as inconsistent with the statutory exclusion when the transaction amounts to transfer of immovable property/benefits arising from land. Ratio vs. Obiter: The holding that transfers which effect transfer of undivided interest/benefits arising from land are not services within Section 65B(44) - and therefore not subject to service tax - is treated as the ratio. Explanatory statements in cited decisions about detailed factual permutations (e.g., mechanics of advertising, booking procedures) are explanatory but supportive of the principal ratio. Conclusion: The Court holds that transfer of land development rights, as evidenced by the MOU and attendant transactions, constitutes transfer of immovable property/benefits arising from land and is excluded from the taxable definition of 'service'. The demand of service tax on that basis is unsustainable. Issue 2 - Applicability of precedents where parties differ; whether identity/number of parties (landowner v. non-landowner) affects the legal conclusion Legal framework: Principles of precedent and application of legal tests to facts - whether a factual distinction (three-party arrangement in earlier decisions versus two-party arrangement in present cases) alters the applicability of the legal principle that development rights are immovable property. Precedent treatment: The Court explicitly follows prior decisions which held that TDR/land development rights are immovable property and outside the scope of 'service' tax. It considers these precedents binding for the legal proposition irrespective of permutations in party structure unless the factual matrix changes the legal character of the right transferred. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court examines the revenue's attempt to distinguish earlier decisions on the basis that those involved three-party structures (landowner, developer, purchaser) whereas the current show-cause notices are issued to land-owning companies. The Court finds the attempted distinction immaterial because the crux of the legal test is whether the transaction results in transfer of land or benefits arising from land - not the mere number or formal description of parties. The show-cause itself acknowledges that the developer was engaged in developing and marketing the projects and that the rights transferred included rights to develop, market and convey undivided interest in land. Therefore, the legal principles from earlier decisions apply despite factual differences in party labels or number. Ratio vs. Obiter: The rejection of the revenue's party-structure distinction as a basis to avoid the earlier legal principle is part of the binding ratio insofar as it affirms that the legal character of the rights (immovable property/benefits arising from land) controls taxation, not superficial differences in contractual party labels. Conclusion: The Court rejects the revenue's factual distinction and holds that prior decisions are applicable. The fact that show-cause notices were issued to land-owning companies does not change the legal conclusion that the transfers are excluded from service tax. Remedial conclusion The Court sets aside and quashes the impugned adjudication confirming demands of service tax, interest and penalties in respect of the batch of appeals, allowing the appeals with consequential reliefs, because the transactions challenged constitute transfer of immovable property/benefits arising from land and are excluded from the definition of 'service' under the Finance Act.