Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  The GSTN has issued an Advisory dated 21.04.2026 about the introduction of an Offline Tool for the Invoice Management System (IMS)  *  CBIC extends due dates for filing of FORM GSTR 3B  for the month of April 2026 *  Interest cannot be imposed in adjudication order, if not demanded/quantified in show cause notice : Allahabad HC *  Wheelchairs with toileting facility eligible for exemption: CESTAT affirms customs duty exemption to importer *  Industries urge GST council to allow inverted duty refunds on input services *  Tamil Nadu GST dept introduced virtual hearing facility for GST appeals under under section 107 of the TNGST act: detailed guidelines  *  CIC urges authorities to implement GST evasion complaint tracking system *  Even if the assessee opts "NO" for personal hearing in form DRC-06 ,The mandatory requirement under section 75(4) to grant opportunity of hearing cannot be waived:Gujarat High Court  *  Glufosinate imports curbs imposed by govt *  Government extends Re-import period for exported cut & polished diamonds *  CIC flags lack of tracking system for tax evasion complaints,urges GST authorities to improve transparency *  No Custodial Interrogation needed in GST fraud case based on documentary evidence already in Department's Possession : Chattisgarh HC *  Orders under section cannot be sustained if passed without considering the taxpayer's objections and without granting a personal hearing:Gujarat High Court *  Mere cancellation of supplier's registration cannot,by itself,justify denial of ITC or cancellation of the recipient's registration:Bombay High Court *  High Court sets aside GST notice citing factual errors and natural justice violations *  Provisional Bank Attachment under Section. 110 of Customs Act Unsustainable Beyond Statutory period without Extension order: Bombay HC orders to defreeze accounts *  Post Clearance MRP Alteration by Distributor Does not attract Differential Customs Duty: CESTAT *  DGFT Expands scope of 'Screws' classification under RoDTEP Scheme  *  E-way bills surze to all time high of 140.6 million in March *  GST Exemption Allowed on Pure Labour Services for Standalone Houses: AAR  *  GST Payable Only on Margin in Second-Hand Car Sales, Subject to Strict Conditions and No ITC Claim: AAR *  DGFT rolls out procedure for allocation of calcined coke *  GST portal update : Pre-deposit amount now editable in Appeals *  J&K HC declared TMT scrap a 'Specified Good' eligibile for GST refunds under Support Scheme  *  Pigmy agents are employees of banks; no GST can be levied on commission  paid to them : Karnataka HC *  DGFT Revises HS Code Description for Screws Under RoDTEP *  GST Registration Cancellation Invalid Without Proper Service of Notice: Allahabad High Court. *  Bengaluru CGST | GST Backlog Appeals Deadline Fixed at June 30, 2026 *  No Time Bar on Refund of Service Tax for Services Not Rendered: CESTAT  Remands Indiabulls Case for Unjust Enrichment Check. *  Supreme Court Holds Renewable Energy Incentive Must Benefit Generators, Not Be Adjusted in Tariff
Subject News *   Delhi HC Quashes Order, Says Reminder Cannot Validate Improperly Served GST SCN *  KARNATAKA HIGH COURT REMANDS GST SHORTFALL MATTER DUE TO ABSENCE OF PERSONAL HEARING   *  CESTAT cancels confiscation and penalties on imported computer cabinet cases: Custom duty restricted to 111 surplus units *  Deposit of tax during search or investigation cannot be treated as 'Voluntary Payment' : Bombay High Court *  Section 76 of the CGST cannot be invoked where the tax has already been duly deposited, even if through another registration of the same entity: Madras High Court *  Sec 74 allows use of material regardless of source; illegality or flaws in section 67 search do not vitiate valid adjudication: HC *  Inter-State transfer of ITC on Amalgamation permissible as given under section 18(3) read with rule 41 of the CGST rules, 2017: Gujarat High Court *  HC: No GST on commisson paid to Pigmy Agents *  IGST refund denial on illegible bill of lading invalid absent chance to furnish docs; merit reconsideration in appeals directed: HC *  ITC is not admissible on GST paid on leasehold rights of land used fpr setting up an air seperation plant: AAAR,Tamil Nadu *  GST: No penalty under Section 74 after voluntary ITC reversal due to non-existent supplier : High Court *  TN AAAR denies GST ITC on Land Lease under Sec. 17(5)(d) for setting up plant and machinery *  GST proceedings quashed as notices sent to old address, despite updated address in registration *  Importer Can’t Be Penalised for Alleged IGCR Procedural Lapses Without Evidence of Departmental Error: CESTAT *  Structured Healthcare Training Not ‘Charitable Activity’, 18% GST Payable: AAR  *  CESTAT As The Appellate Authority For Central Sales Tax Disputes: A Paradigm Shift Under Finance Act, 2023 *   Rs. 25K Cost Imposed On SGST Joint Commissioner for Attaching Bank  Accounts Without Forming Mandatory “Opinion”: Bombay HC *   Ex-Parte GST Order Without Hearing Violates Natural Justice: Karnataka  High Court Quashes Adjudication and Bank Attachment.  *   Retrospective GST Cancellation Can’t Invalidate Genuine Transactions:  Jaipur Commissioner (Appeals) Quashes Rs. 95,670 ITC Demand. *   GST Pre-Deposit Non-Compliance: Allahabad High Court Allows Appeal  Subject to Rs. 30 Lakh Balance Deposit, Recognises Offline Filing. *  Documentary Nature of Evidence: Allahabad High Court Grants Bail in Rs. 32.66 Crore Fake ITC Fraud Case *  Supreme Court Flags Systemic Bias in Army’s Permanent Commission Process for Women Officers *  Re-Determination of Land Compensation Can Be Based on Appellate Court Awards, Clarifies Scope of S. 28-A: Supreme Court. *  Supreme Court Imposes Rs. 5 Lakh Costs On Rent Authority Officer For Acting Beyond Jurisdiction. *  DGGI Meerut | Court Denies Bail to Accused in Claiming Fake ITC And Export Refunds *  Denial of GST Rate Revision Benefit to Contractor Violates Article 14: Rajasthan HC *  GST Registration Cancellation for Non-Filing of Returns: Gauhati High Court Directs Restoration on Compliance. *   Supreme Court Quashes FEMA Adjudication Orders, Revives Proceedings at  Show Cause Stage. *   Higher Rank, Harsher Punishment Justified: Supreme Court Restores Dismissal  of Bank Manager in Misappropriation Case. *   Limitation for Export Refund to Be Counted from Foreign Exchange Realisation,  Not From Export Invoices Issuance: CESTAT  

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