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/2013-14/2029

Whether charges collected towards local municipal taxes leviable to service tax?

Case:-HIRANANDANI CONSTRUCTION PVT.  LTD. VERSUS COMMR. OF C.EX., THANE-I

Citation:-2013 (32) S.T.R. 709 (Tri.-Mumbai)

Brief Facts:-The appeal and stay application are arising out of Order-In-Original No. 31/BR-31/ST/Th-I/2011, dated 29-06-2011 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane-I.
The appellant-M/s. Hiranandani Construction Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai are engaged in the construction of residential flats. During the sale of the flats before handing over the possession of such flats, the appellant collected the development and maintenance fees from the flat buyers as the promoter is liable to discharge payments towards outgoing expenses including any municipal local taxes, property tax, water charges, electric charges, revenue assessment or inter­est or any mandatory charges under the provisions of Section 5 of Maharashtra Ownership of Flats (Regulation) Act, 1963. On completion of construction while handing over the possession, the developer returns the balance amount, if any, after debiting the expenses. The department was of the view that the activity un­dertaken by the appellant as per the provisions of Section 5 of the aforesaid Act comes under the category of 'Management, maintenance and repair services". Accordingly, a Service Tax demand of Rs. 10,44,855/- was confirmed including the demand towards GTA services amounting to Rs. 9,492/-.
 
Appellant Contentions:-The learned Counsel makes the following submissions:-

The appellant has collected the amount from flat owners as under Section 5 of the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats (Regulation) Act, 1963, as the appellant was obliged to discharge property tax, water and elec­tricity tariff etc on behalf of the flat owners and the appellant has under­taken these activities in the capacity of an executor. Therefore, the appel­lant has not rendered any management, maintenance or repair services. Therefore, the impugned demand is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, he prays for grant of stay. He also relies on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Lake View Developers vide Order No. S/416/13/CSTB/C-l, dated 19-3-2013, wherein stay has been granted by this Tribunal in a similar matter. It is his further submission that in respect of the various ser­vices such as cleaning services, lift maintenance etc. individual service providers have discharged the Service Tax liability.
 
Respondent Contentions:-The learned Commissioner (AR) appearing for the Revenue reiter­ates the findings of the adjudicating authority.
 
Reasoning of Judgment:-After carefully considering the submissions made by both the sides and after perusing the provisions of Section 5 of the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats (Regulation) Act, 1963, we are of the view that the appellant has made out a strong case in their favour for grant of waiver from pre-deposit. Accordingly, we grant unconditional waiver from pre-deposit of the dues adjudged against the appellant and stay recovery thereof during the pendency of the appeal.
 
Decision:-Stay granted.

Comment:-The substance of this case is that the charges collected as development and maintenance fees from the flat buyers during the sale of the flats before handing over the possession of such flats are not liable to service tax under the category of “Management, maintenance and repair service.” The reason for the same being that the assessee has collected such charges for discharging payments towards outgoing expenses like municipal local taxes, property tax, water charges, electric charges, or any other mandatory charges under the provisions of Section 5 of Maharashtra Ownership of Flats (Regulation) Act, 1963. Hence, the service rendered by assessee would be treated as activities undertaken in capacity of executor which is not leviable to service tax.
 
 

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