2023 (8) TMI 126

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ces. During scrutiny of the account for the year 2006-07 and 2007-08 it was found that appellant had received Rs.92,56,460/- and Rs.18,01,000/- during 2006-07 and 2007-08 respectively for providing 'Real Estate Services'. The appellant had not registered for the said service and did not discharge the service tax liability. Show Cause Notice dated 19.09.2011 was issued proposing to demand the service tax along with interest and for imposing penalty. After due process of law the original authority confirmed the demand along with interest and imposed penalties. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the same. Hence this appeal. 2.1 The Learned Counsel Shri M. N. Bharathi appeared and argued for the appellant. It is submitted that the ap....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rges for Real Estate Agent services though the appellant had indicated the amount as service charges in their accounts. 4. The Learned Counsel argued on the ground of limitation also. It is submitted that the entire transaction was reflected in the Books of account and Balance sheet. The department has not put forward any evidence to establish that there is wilful suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of tax. The appellant was under bonafide belief that being purchase and sale of immovable property there is no taxable event in the transaction. The appellant is registered under 'Renting of immovable property and is filing returns and discharging appropriate tax. Moreover, the word 'wilful' suppression has not been alleged in the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lant is therefore guilty of wilful suppression of facts and the demand raised invoking extended period is legal and proper. 6. Heard both sides. 7. The issue to be decided is (i) whether the appellant is liable to pay service tax under 'Real Estate Agent Service' (ii) whether the extended period in invokable (iii) whether the appellant has put forward reasonable cause for non-imposition of penalties under Section 80 of the Finance Act 1994. 8. The Learned Counsel for appellant has strenuously argued that the appellant had not rendered any service as 'Real Estate Agent' and that the amount received is profit from purchase and sale of immovable property. The documents relied to support this argument are the General Power of Attorney and de....