Real Estate Agent and works contract tax demands fail where no agency element exists and actual-deduction valuation is supportable.

Direct purchase, development and sale of land on behalf of a firm, without any agency, consultancy or commission element, is not taxable as Real Estate Agent Service; the demand was set aside. Works Contract valuation must first be made under Rule 2A(i) where the value of goods transferred is identifiable and supported by records; applying Rule 2A(ii) without rejecting the actual-deduction method was unjustified, so the differential demand was set aside. The GTA demand survived only to the extent of the admitted amount already paid, and the consequential penalties were also set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the demand under the category of Real Estate Agent Services was sustainable; (ii) whether differential service tax could be demanded under Works Contract Services by rejecting valuation under Rule 2A(i) and applying Rule 2A(ii); (iii) whether the GTA demand and consequential penalties could be sustained.

Issue (i): Whether the demand under the category of Real Estate Agent Services was sustainable.

Analysis: The taxable entry required rendering of service by a real estate agent or consultant. The transactions on record showed purchase, development and sale of land undertaken on behalf of the firm because agricultural lands had to be acquired in another person's name under the applicable land law. The documents indicated that the lands were held in trust for the firm and that there was no agency service, commission, or other service element of the kind contemplated by the definition.

Conclusion: The demand under Real Estate Agent Services was not sustainable and was set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether differential service tax could be demanded under Works Contract Services by rejecting valuation under Rule 2A(i) and applying Rule 2A(ii).

Analysis: Rule 2A(i) provides for determination of the service portion by deducting the value of property in goods transferred in execution of the works contract, and Rule 2A(ii) applies only when valuation cannot be determined under clause (i). The record showed that VAT had been paid on the value of goods, and the assessee had separately accounted the service portion. The demand was built by selectively picking invoices and applying a notional percentage without rejecting the valuation method under clause (i) on any supported basis.

Conclusion: The differential demand under Works Contract Services was not justified and was set aside.

Issue (iii): Whether the GTA demand and consequential penalties could be sustained.

Analysis: The GTA amount had already been paid at the time of audit and the issue was not contested. In view of the result on the substantive demands, the penalties were also not sustained.

Conclusion: The GTA demand was confirmed only to the extent of the admitted amount, and the penalties were set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were substantially allowed in favour of the assessee, with only the admitted GTA liability surviving and all other contested tax and penalty demands being set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: A direct sale and purchase transaction without an agency, consultancy, or commission element is not taxable as real estate agent service, and valuation of works contract service must first be made under the actual-deduction method where the value of goods transferred is identifiable and supported by records.

---