-
by Admin
15 February 2026 5:01 PM
"Where there is no commission or agency, but only independent commercial risk and transfer of immovable property, the transaction is a sale, not a service" – Supreme Court of India delivered a significant judgment on the scope of service tax liability in the real estate sector, ruling that activities carried out under MOUs for land acquisition and development by a real estate developer do not constitute taxable services under the Finance Act, 1994. The Court affirmed the Tribunal's finding that the respondent was not acting as a “Real Estate Agent” and the transactions amounted to sale of immovable property, which falls outside the scope of service tax.
The bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Sandeep Mehta dismissed the Revenue's appeal and held that the respondent's activities were transactions of outright sale of land and not rendering of taxable services. Further, the invocation of extended limitation under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 was found unjustified due to absence of wilful suppression or fraud.
"Profit or Loss Dependent on Land Price Differential Does Not Make One an Agent" – MoUs Showed No Principal-Agent Relationship
The dispute arose from MOUs executed by M/s Elegant Developers with Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. (SICCL) for identification, documentation, and facilitation of land acquisition for Sahara City Homes projects at Sriganganagar, Vadodara, and Kurukshetra. Under these MOUs, SICCL agreed to pay a fixed average price per acre for the land, while the respondent bore the risk of negotiating prices with landowners. There was no separate service charge or commission payable under the MoUs. The respondent’s profit or loss was entirely contingent on the difference between the land purchase price and the fixed average rate.
Rejecting the Revenue’s contention that the respondent functioned as a 'Real Estate Agent', the Court held that no agency relationship was established:
"There existed no relationship of principal and agent between SICCL and the respondent. The MoUs did not stipulate any commission or service fee... the gains were entirely dependent on land price differential negotiated by the respondent." [Para 40]
“This would not be possible if the contract was for providing services based on commission or in any other form.” [Para 40]
The Court emphasized that the respondent bore independent commercial risk and that the economic structure of the agreement resembled a trading transaction, not a service contract.
“Sale of Immovable Property is Excluded from Definition of Service” – Section 65B(44) Protects Land Transactions from Service Tax
Central to the Supreme Court’s reasoning was the exclusion under Section 65B(44)(a)(i) of the Finance Act, 1994, which excludes sale or transfer of title in immovable property from the ambit of “service”.
“These activities were purely of sale/conveyance of immovable property which clearly falls within the exception as provided under Section 65B(44)(a)(i)...” [Para 43]
The Court thus held that the entire transaction structure fell within this statutory exclusion, as it involved transfer of title in land from landowners to SICCL via sale deeds facilitated by the respondent, who acted not as an agent but as an independent land aggregator or trader.
The judgment decisively reaffirmed that transfer of immovable property per se does not constitute service, and unless there is an element of advice, consultancy, or technical assistance (as defined under Sections 65(88) and 65(89)), no liability under service tax arises.
“No Suppression, No Extended Limitation” – Bona Fide Belief and Transparent Banking Transactions Defeat Revenue’s Time-Barred Demand
The Court also addressed the Revenue's invocation of the extended limitation period under the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, which allows tax authorities to go back five years if suppression of facts is proved.
The Directorate General had alleged that the respondent wilfully suppressed the nature of services rendered and failed to register under service tax laws, justifying the invocation of extended limitation. However, the Court found no evidence of intent to suppress:
“Admittedly, all the transactions... were through valid banking channels and thus, there was no element of concealment or suppression.” [Para 52]
“The appellant has failed to adduce any evidence or establish that the respondent engaged in wilful or deliberate suppression... there is nothing on record to suggest that the respondent acted with any intention to mislead...” [Para 53]
The Court reaffirmed its earlier precedent in Stemcyte India Therapeutics Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE & ST (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1412), emphasizing that:
“Mere non-payment of service tax, without any element of intent or suppression, is not sufficient to attract the extended limitation period.” [Para 49]
Thus, the demand of service tax raised in 2010 for the period 2004–2007 was held to be time-barred, as the Revenue failed to meet the legal threshold of proving deliberate suppression.
Transactions of Land Procurement and Sale at Fixed Rates Are Not Taxable Services Unless There is a Commissioned Agency or Consultancy
In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the Appellate Tribunal’s ruling and dismissed the appeals filed by the Commissioner of Service Tax, holding:
“These transactions were not undertaken for service charges, commission, agency or consultancy but were plain and simple transactions of sale of land...” [Para 44]
The judgment provides significant clarity for real estate developers and similar entities engaged in land aggregation, confirming that unless the transactions are structured as commissioned services or agency arrangements, they remain outside the scope of taxable services under the Finance Act, 1994.
The ruling further cautions tax authorities from invoking extended limitation without concrete proof of suppression or fraud and reiterates the importance of correctly classifying commercial transactions before imposing service tax.
Date of Decision: 10 November 2025
