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

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/CASE LAW/2015-16/2740

Whether assessee is liable to pay service tax on the Notional Interest on the Security Deposit collected?

Case:-MAGARPATTA TOWNSHIP DEV. & CONST. CO. LTD. VsCOMMR. OF C. EX., PUNE-III

Citation:-2014 (33) S.T.R. 53 (Tri. - Mumbai)

Brief Facts:-The appeal and stay application are directed against Order-in-Original No. 20/P-III/ST/COMMR/ 2012-13, dated 14-12-2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Pune.
The appellant, M/s. Magarpatta Township Development & Construction Co. Ltd. is a service provider engaged in various services including renting of immovable property of commercial construction undertaken by them. The appellant has been discharging service tax liability on the rent received from the lessees. The appellant has also taken security deposit from the lessees. The department was of the view that notional interest on the security deposit is also a consideration for the renting of the immovable property and therefore, service tax liability should be discharged on the notional interest @ 18% per annum on the security deposit collected by the appellant. Accordingly, a service tax demand of Rs. 3,26,12,102/- was made on the appellant for the period 1-6-2007 to 31-1-2011 along with interest thereon and proposing to impose penalty vide notice dated 21-10-2011. The notice was adjudicated vide the impugned order and the demands were confirmed along interest thereon and equivalent amount of penalty was also imposed on the appellant. Hence, the appellant is before Tribunal.

Appellant contentions:- The ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that they have taken security deposit from the lessees for the damages, if any, caused to the furniture and fittings supplied along with the premises or any damage done to the properties. The security deposit has no nexus either with the area of the property rented out. It is charged as six months rent and therefore, it cannot be said that the notional interest has influenced the consideration received for the services rendered. He relies on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CCE, Mumbai-III v. ISPL Industries Ltd. - 2003 (154) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) wherein in respect of Central Excise valuation the Hon’ble Apex Court held that notional interest on the advances taken by the assessee, from the buyers cannot be added to the assessable value of the goods cleared, unless there is evidence to show that the interest free deposit taken has influenced the price and the burden to prove that the interest free advance has influenced the price is on the revenue. He submits the ratio of the decision would apply to the facts of the present case. There is no evidence led by the revenue to prove that the security deposit taken has influenced the rent for the property leased out and it is only a mere presumption on the part of the Revenue. Accordingly, he pleads for grant of stay.

Respondent contentions:-The ld. Additional Commissioner (AR) appearing for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the adjudicating authority.

Reasoning of Judgment:-We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides.
The practice of taking security deposit for the premises rented out on lease basis is common through out the country and the amount of security deposit taken also varies from place to place and also depends on the property, whether it is for commercial or residential purpose. This is a general practice prevalent through out the country. In the present case also, the appellant has followed this practice. There is no evidence available on record led by the revenue to show that the notional interest on the interest free security deposit has influenced the consideration received for renting and it is only a presumption on the part of the revenue. Therefore, the ratio of the Apex Court decision in the case of ISPL Industries Ltd. (cited supra) would apply. Accordingly, we are, prima facie, of the view that the appellant has made out a case in their favour for grant of stay. Accordingly, we grant unconditional waiver from pre-deposit of dues adjudged against the appellant and stay recovery thereof during the pendency of the appeal.

Decision:-Stay granted. 

Comment:-The essence of the case is that service tax is not leviable on the notional interest on security deposit taken for compensating the damage caused to the property. The service tax is payable on the notional interest of security deposit only if such security deposit has influenced the consideration received for renting. As in the present case, nothing was proved that the security deposit has in any manner influenced the rent, the appeal was allowed following the decision of the Apex Court in the case of ISPL Industries Ltd.

Prepared By: Meet Jain

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