INDUS TUBES LIMITED Vs. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant in this case have challenged the order of Commissioner (Appeals) dated 26 -7 -2005 under which it has been held that the services rendered by the appellant were of real estate agent, as upheld in the Order -in -Original dated 21 -3 -2005 by the Assistant Commissioner. The learned Assistant Commissioner in his order had observed about the activities of the appellant which rendered them liable to service tax in the following manner: In the instant case, I find that the activities committed by them and which were admitted by the party to have performed such activities are covered, are very much covered under the definition of Service Tax Act, 1994 as amended vide Notfn. No. 53/98 -S.T. dated 7 -10 -98 in the category of 'Real Estate Agent'. The definition as detailed in Section 65(74) of the said Act specifies that real estate consultant means a person who renders in any other manner directly or indirectly, advice, consultancy or technical assistance in relation to evaluation conception design, development, construction, implementation, supervision, maintenance, marketing acquisition or management of real estate agent. As per the above definition, it is not mandatory that a person should be a real estate consultant for being a real estate as has been contested by the party. The person, however, should have performed any of functions of advice, consultancy, technical assistance etc. I find that the party has undoubtedly offered his services to M/s. J.V.D. Builders by procuring orders for construction of houses and then getting payments to the said M/s. J.V.D. Builders. This fact has been admitted by the party too. It has also a fact on record that the party has received a sum of Rs. 45,00,000/ - in consideration for the above services rendered by them. This fact has not been contested by them. I thus find that the party had worked as a Real Estate Agent and services rendered by them comes under the ambit of Service tax as the services provided by the Real Estate Agent and they have collected an amount of Rs. 45,00,000/ - on which no Service tax was paid by them is chargeable to Service tax and should be recovered from them along with interest. Also by non -obtaining the registration under Service Tax Rules and by not submitting the prescribed Service Tax Returns, they have invited penal provisions as per the impugned show cause notice.

(2.) IN the appeal before us, the appellant has stated that they had helped JVD Builders in procurement of orders and arranging payment for which they were given a certain amount. According to them, for attracting under the category of 'real estate agent' one should be a person, who should be engaged in rendering services in relation to sale, purchase, leasing or renting or real estate and one should be real estate consultant.

(3.) ON perusal of the definitions of 'real estate agent' as appearing under Section 65(73) of the Finance Act, 1994, indicates as follows: