TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (11) TMI 420
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in respect of an amount of Rs. 14,65,106/- was rejected for the reason that the category / classification of services noted by the service provider in the invoice was not an approved service by the Unit Approval Committee. He submitted that there is no dispute that the said services were used for authorized operations of the appellant which is a SEZ developer. The services were used for development of various SEZ units. He referred to the agreement entered into between the appellant and the service provider and submitted that the service provider was appointed as a property manager. The said services were availed for operation, maintenance and management and marketing of the properties of the appellant. The service consideration was also pa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the invoices classifying the service as Real Estate Agent Service. In fact, the agreement itself stipulates that there is no agency relationship between the appellant and the service provider. Merely because one of the services which have been agreed between the parties is marketing of the immovable property, it cannot be said that the services rendered would exclusively fall under Real Estate Agent Service. Since the service provider is a property manager, they are providing services of operation, maintenance, management also along with marketing services. Therefore, I am of the view that the mis-classification of services in the invoices cannot be a ground for rejection of refund claim. I hold that the appellant is eligible for refund in ....