𝗦𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗶𝗰𝗲 𝗧𝗮𝘃 – 𝗖𝗘𝗦𝗧𝗔𝗧 𝗡𝗲𝘄 𝗗𝗲𝗹𝗵𝗶 𝗥𝘂𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗻 𝗝𝗼𝗶𝗻𝘁 𝗗𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗹𝗼𝗽𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗮𝗴𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 📢 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗧𝗿𝗶𝗯𝘂𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗵𝗲𝗹𝗱: "The appellant, as a co-developer, carried out the activity on a principal-to-principal basis and not as an agent, hence no service tax is leviable under Business Support Service."

🔍 𝗙𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘀: 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗻𝘆: Safal Construction Pvt Ltd. 𝗜𝘀𝘀𝘂𝗲: Whether the appellant is liable to pay service tax for consideration received under the co-development agreement. 𝗔𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗶𝘁𝘆: The appellant entered a co-development agreement to develop the Pegasus Commercial Complex, but did not pay service tax, leading to a show-cause notice.

⚖️ 𝗝𝘂𝗱𝗴𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁: The Tribunal noted that the appellant was not an agent and was an active party in the joint venture. The consideration was based on the venture’s profit, not as a service provided to any other party. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in UOI vs. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., the Tribunal ruled that the appellant did not provide Business Support Service to the joint venture and that the service tax demand was time-barred due to lack of malafide intent.

📜 𝗖𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝗜𝗻𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻: 𝗧𝗶𝘁𝗹𝗲: Safal Construction Pvt Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, New Delhi 𝗢𝗿𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗗𝗮𝘁𝗲: 28 November 2022 📜 This ruling confirms that co-developers working on a principal-to-principal basis in joint ventures are not liable to service tax under the "Business Support Service" category.