Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Missing seized records must be considered while testing ITC claim; duplicate GST demands ordered corrected: Delhi High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be rejected without addressing taxpayer’s grounds: Allahabad High Court. *  Surplus IGST credit can offset CGST, SGST shortfall: GSTAT. *  GST refund can’t be denied when cancelled airfares are returned with tax: GSTAT. *  3 Hearing notices issued within 2 minutes: Gujarat High Court flags portal flaw, seeks report. *  GSTR-9, GSTR-9C filing for FY 2025-26 enabled; pending GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B must be filed first. *  Dupattas are exempt fabrics, can’t be taxed as fibres at 4%: Madras High Court. *  Full transitional credit allowed on capital goods received after GST rollout: GSTAT denies Rs. 6.99 lakh export duty credit. *  GST return mismatch alone can’t justify fraud proceedings: GSTAT orders fresh adjudication under section 73. *  Supplier found non-existent later can’t alone justify input tax credit denial: GSTAT. *  GST interest stops once tax reaches government account, can’t run until return filing: GSTAT. *  Cancelled flat booking- GST refund can’t be denied without excluding COVID period from limitation: GSTAT. *  India notifies rules of origin for India–New Zealand FTA. *  Incomplete E-bike kits classifiable as complete vehicles, but not eligible for CKD duty concession: CESTAT. *  Same GST rate on main input and output can’t by itself bar inverted duty refund: GSTAT. *  Unjust enrichment doesn’t apply to customs refunds from assessments finalised before July 13, 2006: Gujarat High Court. *  CENVAT credit can’t be denied solely because plant And machinery are embedded in earth: Karnataka High Court. *  DFIA exports ineligible for RoDTEP benefits; customs directs repayment with applicable interest. *  Second E-Way bill alone doesn’t prove another supply: GSTAT. *  Bail denied in Rs. 1.19 crore fake GST refund case over risk of accused absconding again: Punjab and Haryana High Court. *  GST registration can be restored after revocation deadline if outstanding dues are paid: Gauhati High Court. *  Multiple GST proceedings over same suppliers: Calcutta High Court directs dept. to share findings for adjudication. *  E-Governance portal services not OIDAR, fixed deposit interest not taxable: CESTAT. *  Rs. 500 Stamp duty required on authority letters for CAs, CMA and GST practitioners in Pune GST division.  *  Rs. 1.10 crore GST refund must be paid in cash after business closure: Allahabad High Court. *  Godown rent attracts 18% GST even when used exclusively for exempt agricultural warehousing: AAR. *  GST portal launches "Multi-State Registration" facility: one master TRN for registration applications across multiple States/UTs. *  RoDTEP scheme extended till 31st December, 2026.  *  Mere disagreement with order can’t override Rs. 20 lakh appeal limit: GSTAT. *  Customs interest can’t be backdated before confiscation liability is determined; nearly 8 year period excluded: Delhi High Court.
Subject News *  GST summons: anticipatory bail maintainable without arrest order, but relief denied in evasion case: Allahabad High Court. *  GST Appeal can’t be decided without hearing taxpayer’s objections to fresh evidence: Allahabad High Court. *  GST ITC can’t be reversed merely because supplier grants discount without reducing tax liability: GSTAT. *  Mere quoting of GST provision is not a valid charge: GSTAT quashes ITC denial. *  Personal hearing mandatory before adverse GST order, even without taxpayer’s request: Rajasthan High Court. *  Parallel bail pleas without full disclosure amount to abuse of process Rs. 43.08 crore GST case sent for fresh hearing: Supreme Court. *  GST refund based on unchallenged advance ruling can’t be recovered using later circular: GSTAT. *  Payment of GST alone doesn’t end interest and penalty liability when tax and interest remain unpaid beyond 30 days of notice: GSTAT. *  GST demand over builders’ 80% procurement rule requires reasoned adjudication: GSTAT. *  Eligible ITC doesn’t automatically entitle taxpayers to compensation cess refund on domestic sales: GSTAT. *  GST confiscation order passed before reply deadline invalid: GSTAT. *  GST interest can’t be retained after tax refund on delayed export receipts: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be dismissed over pre-deposit shortfall without opportunity To respond: Bombay High Court. *  DGGI SCN can’t be challenged before reply and adjudication:Chhattisgarh High Court. *  GST input tax credit can’t be denied solely due to supplier’s retrospective registration cancellation: GSTAT. *  GST notice must explain fraud allegations; merely repeating section 74 Is not enough:  Himachal Pradesh High Court. *  Audit detection alone can’t justify GST fraud penalty; specific suppression must be proved: GSTAT. *  GST order uploaded only under ‘Additional Notices’ tab without separate intimation set aside: Calcutta High Court. *  Service Tax appeal can’t be rejected for missing pre-deposit proof when payment is already recorded: CESTAT. *  SGST dept. can’t hear appeal against CGST order: Calcutta High Court. *  Mere dispatch of tax order can’t prove service or make appeal time-barred: CESTAT. *  Dealer incentives can’t be taxed merely on ledger entries: CESTAT. *  DGFT orders quashed for failure to supply DRI letter relied upon in SCN: Bombay High Court. *  GST penalty u/s 122(1A) can’t apply to Pre-2021 transactions; unregistered beneficiaries also covered: Delhi High Court. *  Expired E-way bill caused by wrong PIN code can’t justify GST penalty without intent to evade tax: GSTAT. *  Used railway rails can’t be taxed as track material without proof they are fit for reuse: CESTAT. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand on different issue: Delhi High Court. *  ITC dispute involves no question of law: GSTAT directs appeal to Vice-President. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand On different issue: Delhi High Court. *  No E-way bill required for interstate goods movement in november 2017: GSTAT quashes detention and penalty.  

Comments
Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/Case Laws/2012-13/1443

Whether amount received as deposit for maintenance chargeable to service tax?

Case:-  ROHAN BUILDERS Vs COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, BANGALORE
 
Citation:-  2013-TIOL-300-CESTAT-BANG

Brief Facts:- The appellant is a flat promoter and the dispute relates to the amount collected by the appellant from the individual flat owners as deposit for the purpose of “maintenance” which responsibility has to be ultimately undertaken by the association of flat owners. The appellant has undertaken the maintenance work even when only some of the flats were sold and the rest were yet to be sold. After all the flats were sold, they could continue this service at the request of the flat owners, as stated by the appellant. The department has treated the entire amount so received as advances from the flat owners as service charges towards rendering the 'maintenance and repair service' and accordingly confirmed service tax along with interest and imposed penalties under Sections 76, 77 and 78.
 
Appellant’s Contention:-The Appellant submit the relevant agreements and the statutory provisions including the provisions under the Karnataka Ownership of Flat Act submits that the promoter is required to maintain the building and the common facilities till the association is formed by the flat owners and takes over the responsibilities. He submits that the maintenance work is undertaken normally out of interest amount which is likely to accrue on the deposits. If the maintenance expenses exceeds the projected interest, the excess amount is recovered from the flat owners proportionately and in case the expenses towards maintenance is less than the interest, the balance amount of interest is added to the principal amount. He further submits that finally the deposit is liable to be handed over to the association as and when the association is formed by the owners of the flats. It is his submission that they as promoters are not rendering any maintenance services to the flat owners. In case, it is treated as service provided by them, they should be treated as rendering the said services only as a trustee on behalf of the owners of the flats. They may also be considered as pure agent for the purpose of rendering services and for the purpose of valuation of service in terms of Rule 5 of the Valuation Rules. On these grounds, he also submits that extended period of limitation should not be invoked and there is no justification for invocation of the penalty. Demand amount relates to amounts collected as interest for delayed payment on installments by some of the flat owners. This cannot be treated as towards rendering of Construction Services but only as a compensation for delayed payments by the concerned flat owners

Respondent’s Contentions:-The Respondent reiterates the findings and reasoning of the Commissioner.           
 
Reasoning Of Judgment:-Tribunal has carefully considered the submissions from both sides and perused the records. Prima facie, the appellants are undertaking necessary maintenance work of common facilities. However, the entire amount of deposit taken cannot be treated as consideration towards such services, and only the amount utilized out of interest earned on the deposits may qualify to be considered as consideration for the services. The demand may not exceed Rs.7 lakhs as per the submissions of the appellant. Taking entire facts and circumstances of the case into account, it was directed to deposit within six weeks from today and report compliance to the Assistant Registrar and Assistant Registrar to report to the Bench. Subject to deposit of the above amount, there will be waiver of pre-deposit of the balance of dues as per the impugned order.
 
Decision:- Pre-deposit Ordered partly.
 
Comment:-The analogy drawn from this case is that normally amount collected as deposit and as ‘trustee’ is not chargeable to service tax as there is no consideration involved but in the present case, as the matter was of stay application, pre-deposit of interest amount on the deposit was directed to be made. 

Post a Comment
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