Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Service tax penalty can’t survive when assessee acted on dept.’s own view of non-taxability: Delhi High Court. *  GST section 74 extended limitation questionable when form 26AS mismatch was already known: Karnataka High Court grants interim relief. *  CGST demand prima facie impermissible after state GST settlement under section 128A: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court asks GSTAT to sympathetically consider delay as taxpayers pursued remedy before wrong forum. *  Supreme Court stays Tripura High Court ruling protecting genuine buyers from ITC denial over supplier’s GST default. *  Diary entries alone can’t prove clandestine removal of goods: CESTAT quashes excise penalty on steel trader. *  Customs could investigate preferential tariff claims even before sec. 28DA: Delhi High Court. *  Customs dept. relied on fake AI generated case laws: supreme court quashes Rs. 425.28 crore penalty. *  No GST exemption in affiliation and annual registration charges for admission or conduct Of examinations: GSTAT. *  Mere invoices, cheque payments insufficient to establish genuine movement of goods: GSTAT restores Rs. 43.44 lakh ITC demand. *  Consolidated GST show cause notice covering multiple financial years is not without jurisdiction: Delhi High Court. *  Construction of independent houses on separate plots not taxable as ‘Residential Complex’ without common facilities: CESTAT. *  GST penalty exceeding statutory maximum unsustainable; Allahabad High Court quashes ? 50,000/- penalty after taxpayer filed return and paid late fee. *  GST order against standard chartered bank passed without hearing set aside by Bombay High Court. *  Retracted statements can’t be relied upon without cross-examination: CESTAT quashes gold confiscation. *  Burden to prove misclassification lies on customs department: CESTAT. *  CESTAT quashes Rs. 98 lakh excise demand on clearance of used refractory brick scrap. *  Service tax demand on irrigation works quashed: Karnataka High Court rules sale of goods component not taxable as service. *  GSTAT restores tax and penalty for transporting iron scrap without E-way bill citing intent to evade tax. *  Madras High Court stays GST recovery from directors without opportunity to show cause under section 89. *  Madras high court stays GST recovery notice against directors; finds prima facie case on applicability of section 79(1)(c). *  Procedural lapses can’t justify harsh punishment without serious customs breach: CESTAT quashes customs broker licence revocation. *  Service tax payable on land leasing and sports complex charges: CESTAT. *  Settled customs dispute can’t be reopened through Article 226 challenge to interest liability: Delhi High Court. *  Mere facilitation of customs clearance can’t establish knowledge of smuggling: Madras High Court. *  GST registration cancellation stayed: Allahabad High Court questions 99% ITC utilisation cap under rule 86B. *  Composition scheme lapses automatically on crossing Rs. 1.5 crore turnover: GSTAT. *  Gujarat High Court quashes GST cancellation orders after officer relied on non-existent AI-generated case laws. *  Importers liable for customs duty benefits availed through manipulated scrips: Delhi High Court. *  Procedural E-way bill lapse alone can’t justify penalty where genuine transaction and absence of tax evasion are established: GSTAT.
Subject News *  Documentary evidence dominates probe, further custody unwarranted: mumbai court grants bail in Rs. 22.44 crore customs duty evasion case. *  Business premises can’t remain sealed for non-participation in GST search: Allahabad High Court. *  GST pre-deposit must be refunded proportionately when taxpayer partly succeeds in appeal: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court grants 30 days to file GST appeal; keeps pre-deposit issue open due to deposit in parallel CGST proceedings. *  GST demand can’t exceed amount proposed in SCN: Allahabad High Court quashes Rs. 20.47 Crore order. *  Hundreds-of-crores GST demand and heavy 10% pre-deposit no ground to bypass statutory appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Delhi High Court refuses to entertain challenge to gold confiscation due to statutory appeal remedy and unexplained delay. *  Procedural error in customs broker licence inquiry can be rectified through remand: Delhi High Court. *  GSTR-2A mismatch alone can’t justify ITC denial without invoice-wise verification; personal hearing mandatory: GSTAT. *  GST order passed without uploading personal hearing notices violates sec. 75(4): Allahabad High Court. *  TAX EVASION - Sec. 74 GST SCN quashed for not spelling out fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression: Allahabad High Court. *  STPI’s SOFTEX certification and NoC charges taxable as business support services: CESTAT. *  Suspicion can’t replace proof: CESTAT quashes penalty in alleged gold-smuggling operation. *   Limitation runs from communication of order: Madras High Court upholds rejection of delayed GST Appeals. *  Rajasthan High Court quashes GST demand over unsigned show cause notice. *  ITC recovery upheld where supplier failed to deposit GST: Rajasthan High Court. *  Customs commissioner’s empowered to make port trust liable for duty on pilfered goods: Supreme Court. *  Rectification proceedings can’t be used to challenge an uncontested GST assessment through a writ petition: Andhra Pradesh HC. *  GST proceedings against deceased proprietor unsustainable without notice to legal heir: GSTAT. *  Mere availment of ineligible self-assessed ITC doesn’t amount to suppression without evidence of fraud or wilful misstatement: GSTAT. *  Disposal of mining overburden by entity authorised by mining lease holder constitutes taxable service: CESTAT. *  Toll plaza data not mandatory for ITC refund: GSTAT. *  Disputed GST fraud allegations require investigation: Punjab and Haryana High Court makes interim bail absolute in alleged fraud and GST fraud case. *  Non-manufacturer contractor liable to deposit excess excise duty collected from buyer: CESTAT. *  GST order can’t reject taxpayer’s reply as “not satisfactory” without reasons: Madhya Pradesh High Court. *  Uncorroborated statements can’t establish alleged diversion of duty-free goods: CESTAT. *  Erection services were not liable to service tax prior to 10th september 2004: CESTAT. *  Sec. 74 GST notice must spell out statutory ingredients for invoking extended tax demand proceedings: Allahabad High Court. *  No jurisdictional bar under section 6(2)(b) in parallel CGST SGST proceedings: Delhi High Court refuses to bypass GST appeal remedy. *  Madras High Court remits GST demand for fresh adjudication after taxpayer claims it was unaware of SCN following business closure.  

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