CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI WEST ZONAL BENCH SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO: 85971 OF 2015 [Arising out of Order-in-Original No: GOA-EXCUS-000-COM-018-2014-15 dated

30^th January 2015 passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Service Tax, Goa.]

Wilson Godinho Wides Properties & Holdings F-2 3rd Floor Narvekar Trade Centre Opp: Azad Maaidan M G Road Panaji Goa - 403 001 … Appellant versus Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax IDC House, EDC Complex, Patto Plaza, Panaji Goa – 403001 …Respondent APPEARANCE:

Shri BJ Raichandani, Advocate and Ms Neha Chakraborty, Advocate for the appellant Shri Priyesh Bheda, Joint Commissioner (AR) for the respondent CORAM:

HON’BLE MR C J MATHEW, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) HON’BLE MR AJAY SHARMA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

FINAL ORDER NO: 85114 /2026 DATE OF HEARING: 28/10/2025 DATE OF DECISION: 23/01/2026 PER: C J MATHEW M/s Wilson Godinho deals in properties. He acquires real estate from land owners and contracts with intending purchasers of these properties. He has no title to the properties but is in possession consequent upon agreement with the owners of the properties. Alleging that this activity was tantamount to rendering ‘real estate agent service’, service tax authorities initiated proceedings that culminated in order¹ of Commissioner of Customs & Service Tax, Goa, charging him to tax of ₹ 2,15,03,445, on taxable value of ₹ 17,41,89,924, under section 73 of Finance Act, 1994, along with interest as applicable under section 75 of Finance Act, 1994, for the period from 1^st April 2008 to 30, [order-in-original no. GOA-EXCUS-000-COM-018-2014-15 dated 30th January 2015] June 2012 while imposing penalty of like amount under section 78 of Finance Act, 1994 besides penalty under section 77 thereof.

2. Several arguments were put forth by Learned Counsel among which was the submission that the appellant procures land against agreement and that tax liability was sought to be fastened on the entire sale consideration. He contended that copies of audited balance sheet for the period in dispute, as well as sale deeds of seven properties, and bank account statements for 2005-2010, along with attendant agreements, though submitted to the Commissioner, had not been examined before deciding the outcome. Learned Counsel submitted that liability on rendering of ‘real estate agent’ does not reflect proper appreciation of the definition incorporated in section 65 of Finance Act, 1994. His contention is that the impugned properties are held as

‘stock-in-trade’ and that no service was rendered by the appellant to any person.

3. Learned Authorized Representative submitted that the decision of the Tribunal in Sree Annapoorna Gowrishankar Estates and Constructions Private Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Coimbatore, by final order, [no. 40626/ 2023 dated 2nd August 2023] disposing off appeal, [service tax appeal no. 41233 of 2013] against order⁴ of Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Coimbatore, had been relied upon. He also contended that the agreement not transfer rights over the property and, consequently, did not constitute transaction under Transfer of Property Act, 1882 owing to which the sale could not be said to have been completed as far as the transaction of appellant is concerned. It was also pointed out that the payment received from the final buyer of the land is used to make payment to the seller owing to which the appellant is nothing but intermediary.

4. It is seen that the ‘memorandum of understanding (MoU)’ entered into between M/s Wides Properties & Holdings, Goa, being the name and style of under which the appellant operates, involves a commitment on the part of the owner to sell the property either to the appellant or to person nominated by him and at a mutually agreed price. The ‘stock-in-trade’ created, consequently, is liquidated once an

4 [order-in appeal no. CMB-CEX-000-APP No.097/2013 dated 19th March 2013]

agreement for sale is entere