Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  GST registration cancellation without reasons amounts to ‘Economic Death’ of business: Supreme Court. *  No GST refund if appeal before GSTAT is filed late: Gujarat High Court. *  Mere upload of GST notice on portal not valid service, appeal limitation won’t start: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Taxpayer can’t be penalised for missing notices hidden under ‘Additional Notices/Orders’: Calcutta High Court allows fresh adjudication. *  State tax officer can’t issue GST SCN beyond CBIC-assigned jurisdiction: Bombay High Court stays recovery proceedings. *  Earlier 7.5% Pre-Deposit must count towards mandatory 10% for Appeal: Uttarakhand high court quashes CESTAT Order. *  Third Parties can’t challenge GST Advance Rulings merely due to financial impact: Karnataka HC *  GST SCN generated using AI tool quashed: Punjab & Haryana High Court *  Bank Attachment Quashed as Madras HC Quashes GST Order Issued Against Deceased Person *  ITC Blocking Order for Failure to Record ‘Reason to Believe’ U/R 86A Quashed: Allahabad High Court *  Govt Extends GSTAT Appeal Filing Deadline From 30 June to July 31, 2026 *  GST Demand on RWA Stayed: Allahabad High Court Questions Taxability of Electricity Distribution to Flat Owners *  CBIC Clarifies Jurisdiction After GST Registration Transfer: Earlier Proceedings Remain Valid, New Officer to Continue Action *  GST authorities’ certification not mandatory for reimbursement, but tax payment must be proven: Karnataka HC *  Contractor can’t seek gst reimbursement through writ when contract has arbitration clause: Karnataka HC *  Unsigned Order Is No Order in Law: AP HC Quashes GST Assessment Order for Want of Officer’s Signature *  Customs Can’t Levy Rs. 1.36 Crore Cost Recovery Charges Without Proof of Full-Day Officer Deployment: CESTAT  *  12% IGST Payable On Imported Dialysis Machine Parts: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Admits Challenge to GST Limitation Extension Notifications; Grants Protection Against Coercive Recovery *  Criminal Case Can’t Run Parallel to GST Proceedings on Same Facts: Allahabad High Court *  Allahabad High Court Stays GST Detention Order; Directs Release of Vehicle and Goods on Deposit of Rs. 1.44 Lakh *  Service Tax Can’t Be Levied on Loss-Making Contracts: Gujarat High Court *  GSTN Mandates Ship-to GSTIN in e-Invoice and e-Way Bill APIs; Introduces Voluntary e-Way Bill Closure Facility from August 1, 2026 *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred When Taxpayer Was Pursuing Rectification Remedy: Telangana High Court *  Absence of E-Way Bill and Transport Documents Justifies Customs Seizure U/s 110: Gauhati HC *  Madras High Court Upholds GST Late Fee and Penalty for Non-Filing of Annual Return, Dismisses Challenge  *  GST Records, Purchase Documents Sufficient to Discharge Burden Under Customs Act: CESTAT Orders Release of 3.65 Kg Gold  *  No Sugar Cess Payable on Sugar Exported Out of India: CESTAT *  Road Construction Services Exempt and SCN Time-Barred: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Based Solely on Form 26AS  *  ITC Freeze Upheld After GST Dept Find Suppliers Were Allegedly Fake Bill-Trading Entities: Madras HC 
Subject News *  Input service benefits can’t be denied: CESTAT allows export refund despite MMTC acting as Canalising agency. *  No service tax demand without proof of service of SCN: CESTAT. *  Service tax demand quashed as dept. fails to prove service of SCN: CESTAT *  GST : Mere allegation of inadequate consideration of reply not enough to invoke writ jurisdiction: Delhi High Court *  Onerous conditions imposed for provisional release of seized imported goods shouldn’t amount to virtual denial of relief: CESTAT. *  GST SCN without alleging fraud cannot invoke sec. 74: Karnataka High Court quashes adjudication order. *  Extended Limitation Can’t Be Invoked Merely on Form 26AS Data: CESTAT *  Revenue-Sharing with Restaurants Not Taxable as Business Support Service: CESTAT *  R. 6(3) Option Can’t Be Forced on Taxpayer; CESTAT Quashes Rs. 12.36 Crore CENVAT Credit Demand *  Excise Duty | Power Consumption Alone Can’t Prove Clandestine Manufacture: Karnataka High Court *  Madras High Court Examines DGGI’s Authority to Issue GST Penalty Orders Under Section 122, Adds DGGI as Party *  Proceedings under omitted r. 96(10) can’t survive without saving clause: andhra pradesh high court quashes gst refund recovery *  Excise duty power consumption alone can’t prove clandestine manufacture: karnataka high court *  Madras high court rules GST show cause notices must disclose grounds for invoking extended limitation *  Court Can’t Direct Extension GST Return Deadlines or Waive Interest and Penalties: Karnataka High Court *  GST Notifications Can’t Go Beyond GST Council Recommendations: Madras High Court Quashes SCN on Branded Pulses *  Appeal Can’t Be Dismissed for Delay When Dept’s Own Order Mis-states Limitation Period: CESTAT *  No Evidence of KYC or Due Diligence Breach By Customs Broker: CESTAT Quashes Licence Revocation in Export Overvaluation Case *  Glucometers Are Chemical Analysis Instruments Classifiable Under Tariff Heading 9027: CESTAT *  Validity of Post-GST Service Tax Proceedings Upheld: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Challenge to S. 73 SCN *  Rectified GST Refund Applications Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred If Original Refund Claim Was Filed Within Limitation: Gujarat HC *  Service Tax Refund Can’t Be Denied as Time-Barred When Levy Itself Is Unconstitutional: Gujarat High Court *  Same Officer Can’t Act As Auditor & Adjudicator: Karnataka High Court *  Karnataka High Court Condones 324-Day Delay, Revives Customs Appeal in Jewellery Pilferage Case  *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Order Passed Ex Parte Despite Prior ITC Reversal; Lifts Bank Attachment *  Tobacco Process Doesn’t Amount to Manufacturing: Madras High Court Quashes Rs. 1.32 Crore Compensation Cess Demand  *  Recovery Notice Unsustainable After Voluntary Reversal of Unutilised Credit: CESTAT  *  GST | ‘System Generated’ SCN Without Officer Details Invalid: Allahabad HC  *  Electronic Records Without Statutory Certification Requirements Can’t Justify Undervaluation Allegations: CESTAT *  Madras High Court Stays GST Order, Finds Prima Facie Merit in Plea Against S. 74 Proceedings Based on S. 73 Intimation  

Comments

Publish Date: 17 Mar, 2012
Print   |    |  Comment

Section 80A - Another way to trap Renting service providers

Section 80A – Another way to trap Renting service providers..

Prepared By:
CA Preeti Parihar
Manish Vyas

Introduction-
 
Service tax on “Renting of immovable property” service was introduced w.e.f. 1.6.2007. That time the language of charging Section 65(105)(zzzz) to the Finance Act, 1994 suggested that taxable service in this case would be service provided “in relation torenting of immovable property. Thus, at that time the services provided in relation renting of immovable property were chargeable to service tax. Renting in itself was not chargeable to service tax.
 
Litigation rounds:-
 
Later on, after huge claws of litigation, Government amended this Section retrospectively in the Finance Act, 2010. Now, service tax was specifically levied on the “renting of immovable property service”. As such, this amendment brought the renting per se under the net of service tax; that too, retrospectively since levy, irrespective of anything contained in any judgment, decree or order of any court, tribunal or other authority.
 
Even after the retrospective amendment, litigation continued and Delhi high Court has granted stay from recovery of Service Tax in respect of renting of immovable property service in the case of Home Solutions Retails Ltd Vs UoI [2010-TIOL-341-HC-DEL-ST]. It was held that renting of immovable property by itself cannot be regarded as a service. The recovery of service tax thereupon was stayed by the hon’ble High Court.
 
Trent Limited & Future Value Retail Ltd. challenged the validity of the retrospective amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2010. The Andhra Pradesh High Court has stayed the recovery of service tax for the period June 1, 2007 to March 31, 2010 as decided in TrentLtd. v. Union of India and Others [2010-TIOL-402-HC-AP-ST]. But the verdicts of hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court that service tax is not leviable for the period from 1.6.2007 to 1.4.2010. 
 
Further, Delhi High court in the case of Home solutions Retail vs UOI has observed that the government should examine about the waiver of penalty due to non-payment of service tax in this matter. Subsequently, in the case of Retailers Association of India vs UOI, hon’ble Supreme Court has directed the litigants to pay 50% of the arrears within six months in three equal installments. For balance 50%, it was directed to furnish solvent surety at the satisfaction of the jurisdictional commissioner.
 
Section 80A introduced by Budget, 2012-
 
In the above background, the recent Budget has introduced a Section 80A for waiver of penalty subject to following conditions –
 
-                     Service tax due on renting of immovable property service is paid within a period of six month along with interest.
-                     The amount of service tax due will be as on 6.3.2012.
 
Thus, if the service tax due as on 6.3.2012 is paid within six months, the penalty will be waived. However, those who don’t avail this benefit, this Section will be treated as non-existent for them.
 
While parting-
 
Right now, the constitutional validity of Renting of immovable property service is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Retailers Association of India v/s UOI in Civil Appeal No. 8390 of 2011 and in the case of Home Solutions Retail (India) Ltd v/s UoI in Special Leave Civil Appeal No. 27636/2011. But before the Apex Court decided this issue, government is once again ready to convince the providers of renting service to pay the service tax and availment the benefit of penalty waiver. Payment of the service tax on renting of immovable property service means they have accepted the levy. It seems government want to trap the renting service providers in the other way – this is Section 80A …
 

Department News


Query

 
PRADEEP JAIN, F.C.A.

Head Office : -

Address :
"SUGYAN", H - 29, SHASTRI NAGAR, JODHPUR (RAJ.) - 342003

Phone No. :
0291 - 2439496, 0291 - 3258496

Mobile No. :
09314722236

Fax No. :0291 - 2439496


Branch Office : -

Address:
1008, 10th FLOOR, SUKH SAGAR COMPLEX,
NEAR FORTUNE LANDMARK HOTEL, USMANPURA,
ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380013

Phone No. :
079-32999496, 27560043

Mobile No. :
093777659496, 09377649496

E-mail :pradeep@capradeepjain.com