Commissioner of CGST And Central Excise Jaipur Versus Siddha Projects Private Ltd.
Service Tax
2018 (2) TMI 1568 – RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT – [2017] 1 GSTL 34 (Raj), 2018 (9) G. S. T. L. 377 (Raj.)
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 8-12-2017
D.B. Central\/Excise Appeal No. 129\/2017
Service Tax
MR. K. S. JHAVERI AND MR. VIJAY KUMAR VYAS, JJ.
\nFor The Appellant : Mr. Anuroop Singhi with Mr. N.S. Bhatti
\nJudgment
\n1. By way of this appeal, the appellant has assailed the judgment and order of the tribunal whereby tribunal has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee.
\n2. Counsel for the appellant has framed following substantial question of law:-
\n “(i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the penalties imposed upon the assessee u\/s 76 & 78 of the Act despite upholding the finding of suppression and evasion of Service Tax?
\n (ii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in passing a contradictory order and thereby deleting the penalty only on the ground of non <\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ss amount charged from the customers. Moreover, the appellant had not obtained service tax registration. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n d design. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Commissioner of CGST And Central Excise Jaipur Versus Siddha Projects Private Ltd.Service Tax2018 (2) TMI 1568 – RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT – [2017] 1 GSTL 34 (Raj), 2018 (9) G. S. T. L. 377 (Raj.)RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT – HCDated:- 8-12-2017D.B. Central\/Excise Appeal No. 129\/2017 Service TaxMR. K. S. JHAVERI AND MR. VIJAY KUMAR VYAS, JJ. For … Continue reading “Commissioner of CGST And Central Excise Jaipur Versus Siddha Projects Private Ltd.”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-10590","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10590","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=10590"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10590\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=10590"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=10590"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=10590"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n4. Counsel for the appellant has taken us to the order of the first authority and contended that the provisions of Section 174(2) of the Central Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017 is applicable from 1.7.2017 and not prior thereto.
\n5. However, we have gone through the order of the tribunal wherein Tribunal has observed as under:-
\n “8. On the first issue regarding the vagueness of show cause notice, we note that the show cause notice did indicate more than one service for tax liability of the appellant. We note that the contract under which the considerations were received were composite and covers various activities. It is clear that split up figures for each one of the taxable service of different nature were not provided in the show cause notice. The same is possible only when documents with supporting evidence were submitted by the appellant. Such details could have been submitted e<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n (b) Architectural, landscaping and structural design.
\n (c) Project construction management activity.
\n (d) Marketing related activities including sales
\n (e) Legal matters.”
\n 11. The statutory definition of Real Estate Agent is as below:-
\n Section 65(88) of the Finance Act, 1994 defines the words “Real Estate Agent:
\n “Real Estate Agent” means a person who is engaged in rendering any service in relation to sale, purchase, leasing or renting, of any real estate and includes as real estate consultant:
\n “Real Estate Consultant” means a person, who renders in any manner, either 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”.
\n 12. On a plain reading of the scope of the statutory definition and applying the same to the terms of the contract, it is clear that the appellant did pr<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n