Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Dept. Can’t Classify Product as Zarda Scented Tobacco After Repeatedly Approving It As Chewing Tobacco: CESTAT *  Mere Uploading Of GST Order On Portal Is Not “Valid” Service: Tripura HC *  CGST Can Proceed Even If SGST Closed Similar Case Earlier: Delhi HC *  SC upholds 28% GST on online gaming with retrospective effect. *  West Bengal Govt cuts E-way Bill Threshold limit to Rs. 50,000 for intra-state goods movement. *  Criminal Prosecution Under Central Excise Act Can’t Continue After CESTAT Sets Aside Duty Demand on Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Orders for Denial of Personal Hearing; Remands Matter Subject to 10% Deposit *  Ex Parte GST Order: Madras High Court Directs Immediate Removal of Bank/ITC Attachment Upon 25% Deposit *  J.K. Cement Receives GST Demand Order of Rs 8,02,113/- from Ahmedabad Tax Authority *  Delhi Police EOW Busts Alleged Rs. 128 Crore GST Fake Invoice Network. *  REPLY TO SCN CAN’T BE TREATED AS “EMPTY FORMALITY”: ORISSA HIGH COURT QUASHES GST DEMAND OF RS. 57.30 LAKH *  Challenge to CGST Provisions restricting ITC to Bonafide Purchasers : Allahabad HC issues notice *  CBIC Notifies Revised Customs Tariff Values for Edible Oils, Gold, Silver, Brass Scrap and Areca Nuts *  Delhi HC Orders Removal of GST Attachment After Statutory 1 Year Period Expired *  GSTAT Extends Relaxed Appeal Filing Guidelines till December 31, 2026 *  AO fails to Provide Import - Export Data from DGFT to Taxpayer for Reconciliation *  Gold, Silver Imports To Get Costlier As Govt Raises Customs Duty To 10%  *  GSTAT Enables Pre-Payment Access to Document Upload and Checklist for GST Appeal Filing *  GST Portal Restrictions Can’t Override Statute: Gujarat HC Allows Cross-State Transfer Of CGST ITC After Amalgamation *  Centre Revises HS Codes for Large Diameter Steel Pipes Used in Oil & Gas Pipelines *  Customs Duty Liability Arises On Warehouse Clearance Date: Supreme Court *  Government lifts export ban on de-oiled rice bran *  CESTAT Grants 12% Interest on Pre-Deposit for Investigation from Date of Deposit till Refund and Denies Interest on Interest. *  Government Overhauls GST Classification Framework for Non-Alcoholic Beverages; Fruit Juice Drinks, Milk-Based Beverages and Caffeinated Drinks to Attract Revised 5% and 40% GST Rates from May 1, 2026 *  India’s gross GST collections hit a record Rs 2.42 lakh crore in April, up 8.7% *  Customs clearance stalled, revenue hit over MRP dispute *  Shipping Corporation explores Middle East routes as Hormuz tensions disrupt cargo movement *  India, Kenya signs MoU for exchange of pre-arrival customs information *  No demand of Taxes under Reverse Charge if Tax Already Discharged by Service Provider under forward charge *  The India-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement, signed "once-in-a-generation" deal that eliminates tariffs on 100% of Indian exports to New Zealand
Subject News *  Consignment Sales Can’t Be Reclassified as Inter-State Sales Based on Pre-Agreement Evidence: CESTAT *  Exporter Can’t Be Denied Advance Authorization Benefit Due To ICEGATE Technical Glitch: Delhi High Court *  No GST Demand For Mere Wrong Set-Off Of IGST Credit Under CGST And SGST Heads: Kerala HC. *  Cenvat Credit Can’t Be Denied on Input Services Having Nexus With Manufacturing Activities: CESTAT *  Pending Proceedings Can’t Survive Without Saving Clause: Calcutta High Court Quashes GST Demand of Rs. 6.28 Crore After Omission of Rule 96(10) *  Madras HC Quashes GST Demands on TASMAC (Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation) Bar Licence Fee *  GST Proceedings Cannot Survive Omitted Rule Without Saving Clause: Calcutta HC *  Provisional Release Can’t Be Denied Solely On Dept. Suspicion Of Misclassification And Undervaluation Of Imported Goods: CESTAT *  Businesses Should Not Be Kept Outside GST Regime Without Due Process: Gauhati High Court *  Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Reconsideration of Contractors’ Claim for Additional GST Payment After Tax Rate Hike From 12% to 18% *  S. 108 Statements Can’t Be Sole Basis Without Following Section 138B Procedure: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Frames Key Questions on Mandatory Distribution of ITC U/s 20 CGST Act *  Filing of Annexure-B for Refund Applications involving Accumulated ITC using the offline utility in GST portal: GSTN *  No Service Tax on Parent Company’s Un-Invoiced Cost Allocations Without Actual Service or Consideration: CESTAT  *  Calcutta High Court Upholds GST Classification of Polypropylene Leno Bags as Plastic Products *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  GSTAT Issues Major Bench Allocation Framework; All Appeals to First Go Before Division Bench *  ITC Blocking Without Reasoned Order Violates Rule 86A; Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Release of Credit *  Allahabad HC Refuses Bail to CGST Superintendent In Rs. 70 Lakh Bribery Case *  S.130 Can’t Be Invoked Without Prior Tax Determination U/s 73/74: Allahabad High Court Quashes GST Confiscation Proceedings *  SC grants Bail to Rs 54cr GST case  *  Karnataka HC Sets Aside Duplicate GST Orders, Orders Fresh Hearing on GSTIN Cancellation *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  Transfer Of Unutilized ITC After Amalgamation - Supreme Court Issues Notice *  PUNJAB & HARYANA HC QUASHES GST CANCELLATION NOTICE FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE CBIC ENQUIRY REPORT *  LICENSE FEE, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CHARGES NOT INCLUDIBLE IN CUSTOMS VALUE UNLESS THEY ARE A CONDITION OF SALE: CESTAT *  DELHI HC ORDERS REMOVAL OF GST ATTACHMENT AFTER STATUTORY 1 YEAR PERIOD EXPIRED *  CUSTOMS BROKER CAN’T BE FAULTED JUST BECAUSE EXPORTER’S GST REGISTRATION WAS PREVIOUSLY CANCELLED: CESTAT   *  Supreme Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Delhi HC Ruling Holding Real Operator Behind Fake GST Firms Liable As ‘Taxable Person  *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected Merely Because DRC-07 Was Not Uploaded On Portal: Bombay High Court  

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