TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (9) TMI 1724
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....CESTAT') in the stay application filed by the Appellant in Appeal No. ST/50119/2014-CU (DB) which in turn is directed against the order-in-original dated 30th September 2013 passed by the Adjudicating Authority ('AA'), viz.,, the Commissioner of Service Tax ('CST'). 2. The brief facts as stated by the Appellant are that according to Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. (SICCL) was keen to set up residential townships in or around Sriganganagar (in Rajasthan), Vadodara (in Gujarat) and Kurukshetra (in Haryana). At each of the locations SICCL required around 100 to 150 acres of land. SICCL entered into Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) with M/s. Sahara India (SI) which in turn entered into three separate MOUs dated 30th December 2004, 25....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se of land at Sriganganagar, it made a profit as regards the purchase of land at Vadodara. The Appellant maintains that the money received by it for the purchase of land at Kurukshetra was not utilised to purchase land and that the said amount was returned by way of transfer of shares of 13 group companies of the Appellant in favour of SICCL. 5. The AA in the order dated 30th September 2013 held that the Appellant had provided taxable 'real estate' services. The AA, however, agreed with the contention of the Appellant that "the cost/value of land cannot be included in the gross value for levy of service tax." Nevertheless, in proceeding to determine the service tax payable, the AA stated that in the absence of the Appellant providi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r counsel appearing for the Appellant, submitted that the Appellant did raise a contention that the MOUs did not reflect any taxable 'service' having been provided by the Appellant to SI. He pointed out that the SCN itself sets out the fact that the Appellant made a loss as regards the purchase of land at Sriganganagar and a profit as regards the purchase of land at Vadodara. He reiterated the submission that the amount received for the purchase of land in Kurukshetra was returned by it in the form of allotment of shares in 13 group companies in favour of SICCL. The SCN itself showed that no land was in fact purchased at Kurukshetra. He submitted that with the AA having agreed with the Appellant that the entire sum received by the A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eeing with the Appellant that the entire value of the land could not be included for the purposes of computation of service tax, the AA had proceeded to calculate the demand on the gross value of Rs. 112,96,77,891. 11. The Court has considered the above submissions. The AA has in the order dated 30th September 2013 come to the conclusion, on an analysis of the three MOUs entered into between the Appellant and SI, that the Appellant was working as an agent for SICCL and further that it had rendered two kinds of taxable services: one as a real estate agent/real estate consultant under Section 65 (89) of the FA and the other relating to levelling of soil including filling of gorges/nallah, removing of shrubs, grass and rubbish etc. classifiab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that basis. 13. It further prima facie appears that the AA overlooked the fact that even as per the SCN no land in Kurukshetra was purchased although the Appellant received money for that purpose. The Appellant's explanation that it returned the said sum to SICCL in the form of shares in 13 of its group companies does not appear to have been considered. A further question that would arise is whether the entire profit generated from the purchase of land in Vadodara, after accounting for the loss incurred in respect of the purchase of land at Sriganganagar, can be taken to be value of the taxable services, if any, rendered by the Appellant. Those questions cannot obviously be examined at this stage but will have to await the final determ....