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/2014-15/2458

Whether Charitable Institution liable to pay service tax on renting of immovable property?

Case:-M/s SOCIETY OF ST JOSEPH'S COLLEGEVs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX, TIRUCHIRAPALLI

Citation:-2014-TIOL-2230-CESTAT-MAD

Brief Facts:- The applicant is running various Educational Institutions like St. Joseph's College, St. Joseph's Higher Secondary School, St. Joseph's School of Management. Apart from that, they are also  having commercial complexes, which are given on rent to various commercial concerns. There is a demand of service tax of Rs.77,55,977/- along with interest and penalty for the period 01.06.2007 to 31.12.2011 under the category of “Renting of Immovable Property Services”. There is further demand of Rs.3,75,477/- along with interest and penalty for the period 01.04.2007 to 31.12.2011 under the category of “Sale of Space or Time for Advertisement”.
 
Appellant contentions:- The learned Counsel on behalf of the applicant submits that in view of the definition of “Renting of Immovable Property” under Section 65(90a) of the Finance Act, 1994, renting of immovable property by a religious body as per their Bye Laws and the Adjudicating authority erroneously proceeded on the basis of Income-tax Law, which cannot be considered in view of the Board's Circular No.96/7/2007-ST, dated 23.08.2007. He further submits that the benefit under Income-tax Act was availed for the period upto 27.01.2009. It is submitted that the applicant is a minority Institution. He submits that the demand is partly barred by limitation. The demand for normal period is about Rs.22.67 lakhs. He submits that on an identical issue the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Infinity Infotech Parks Ltd. Vs Union of India reported in2013 (31) S.T.R. 653 (Cal.) held that prima faciedemand of tax for extended period of limitation would not apply. He also relied upon the decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of K.M. Building Tenants Association Vs Kuthuparamba Municipality reported in 2013 (30) S.T.R.237 (Ker.). He submits that the balance amount of demand of tax is about Rs.3,00,000/- relating to ‘deemed sale' and no service tax is leviable.
 
Respondent Contentions:- On the other hand, the learned Authorised Representative on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the Adjudicating authority. He submits that the Tribunal on an identical issue had consistently directed pre-deposit of the entire amount of tax, following the Interim Order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P.K. Hospitality Services P. Ltd. Vs Union of India reported in 2012 (26) S.T.R.J. 142 (S.C.) . He further submits that the said Interim Order was not placed before the Hon'ble Kerala High Court and the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court. He further submits that the main issue in this case is that the applicant had given on rent the commercial complexes to the various commercial concerns and, therefore, such activities cannot be taken as an exclusion part of the definition. The applicant was not registered as a religious body under the Societies Registration Act. Regarding the normal period, he submits that it would be about Rs.30,95,469/- as per ST-3 returns.
 
Reasoning of Judgment:-  After hearing both sides and on perusal of the records, we find that the applicant had given on rent various commercial complexes to various commercial concerns. It is noticed that the applicant declared themselves a Charitable Trust under Income-tax Act. The CBEC's Circular, dated 23.08.2007 clarified that the assessee is eligible for exemption under Income-tax Act on the ground of being a Charitable Institution and is of no consequence or has any relevance for service tax purpose. In the present case, the facts remain that the demand of service tax is on the commercial complexes which was given on rent to various commercial concerns. It is also noted that by Interim Order, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P.K. Hospitality Services P. Ltd(supra) directed pre-deposit. For the purpose of proper appreciation, the relevant portion of the said Interim Order is reproduced below:-
 
“Leave granted.
 
The appeal will be heard in SLP Paper Books. Additional documents, if any, may be filed by the parties. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants on the question of stay with regard to the arrears of service tax due as on 30th September, 2011, we direct that on each of the appellant's clearing all the arrears as on the said date in three equated instalments, on or before 1st March, 2012, 1st May, 2012 and 1st July, 2012, no coercive steps shall be taken against the appellants for recovery of the said arrears. However, in the event of default on the part of the appellants in deposit of any one of the instalments by the due date, it will be open to the respondents to recovery the entire amount in arrears forthwith. We clarify that there is no stay of imposition of service tax under sub-clause (zzzz) of clause 105 of Section 65 read with Section 66 of the Finance Act, 1994 (as amended), insofar as the future liability towards service tax with effect from 1st October, 2011 is concerned. Tag with Civil Appeal No.83900 of 2011.”
 
The Tribunal consistently directed pre-deposit of the entire amount of tax following the decision of the P.K. Hospitality Services P. Ltd.(supra). The submission of the learned Counsel that the applicant is a religious body, would be considered at the time hearing of the appeal at length. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and dispute relates to leviability of tax, we direct the applicant to make a pre-deposit of Rs.35,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Lakhs only) within a period of eight weeks. Upon deposit of the said amount, pre-deposit of balance adjudged dues shall remain waived and stay recovery thereof till disposal of the appeal. To report compliance on 5th November, 2014.
 
Decision:-Pre deposit ordered.

Comment:- The essence of the case is that the assessee is eligible for exemption under Income-tax Act on the ground of being a Charitable Institution is of no relevance for service tax purpose. Furthermore, following the ratio of the decision given in P.K. Hospitality P. Ltd. case, the pre-deposit of Rs. 30 Lakhs was ordered.
 
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