2015 (5) TMI 106

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....with M/s Purvankara Projects Ltd. for sale of land, for further developing the same into a housing project by M/s Purvankara. As per the appellant, the land in question belonged to him and his wife and the same was agreed to be sold at Rs. 6.25 lakhs per cent to the said buyer. The value of the land in the agreement was shown as Rs. 3,00,000/- (rupees three lakhs only) per cent and the balance amount of Rs. 3.25 lakhs was shown as "nomination charges". However, there was no details of the fact as to what nomination charges referred to. The land was ultimately sold at Rs. 4.6 lakhs per cent and the entire consideration of Rs. 15.32 crores was approximately received by the appellant as also his wife. Out of the total consideration received, a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... has also contested the demand on the point of limitation by submitting that the deal was complete in the February 2006 and the Revenue started investigating into the matter subsequently which Investigations were also over by June 2009. The show-cause notice was issued subsequently on 24.06.2011. As such, he submits that the demand is barred by limitation. The leaned advocate has also referred to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Uniworth Textiles Ltd. Vs CCE Raipur [2013 (288) E.L.T. 161 (S.C.) wherein it was held that mere non-payment of duties is not equivalent to collision or willful misstatement or suppression of facts. 5. On going through the said decision, we find that in that matter, the Hon'ble Supreme Co....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... part of the assessee. As such, at this prima facie stage, we find no merits in the appellant's contention of the demand being barred by limitation. 7. After considering the submissions made by both sides, we find that identical circumstances were the subject matter of the earlier stay order of the Tribunal being Miscellaneous Order No. 26965/2013 dated 19.08.2013. One of the parties to the agreement for sale of the land was M/s Purvankara Projects Pvt. Ltd. and the activities attributable to that appellant are more or less same activities which stands attributed to the present appellant. In those circumstances, the Tribunal has thought it fit to direct the applicant to deposit a part of the demand of service tax, confirmed in that c....