Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  GST registration cancellation without reasons amounts to ‘Economic Death’ of business: Supreme Court. *  No GST refund if appeal before GSTAT is filed late: Gujarat High Court. *  Mere upload of GST notice on portal not valid service, appeal limitation won’t start: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Taxpayer can’t be penalised for missing notices hidden under ‘Additional Notices/Orders’: Calcutta High Court allows fresh adjudication. *  State tax officer can’t issue GST SCN beyond CBIC-assigned jurisdiction: Bombay High Court stays recovery proceedings. *  Earlier 7.5% Pre-Deposit must count towards mandatory 10% for Appeal: Uttarakhand high court quashes CESTAT Order. *  Third Parties can’t challenge GST Advance Rulings merely due to financial impact: Karnataka HC *  GST SCN generated using AI tool quashed: Punjab & Haryana High Court *  Bank Attachment Quashed as Madras HC Quashes GST Order Issued Against Deceased Person *  ITC Blocking Order for Failure to Record ‘Reason to Believe’ U/R 86A Quashed: Allahabad High Court *  Govt Extends GSTAT Appeal Filing Deadline From 30 June to July 31, 2026 *  GST Demand on RWA Stayed: Allahabad High Court Questions Taxability of Electricity Distribution to Flat Owners *  CBIC Clarifies Jurisdiction After GST Registration Transfer: Earlier Proceedings Remain Valid, New Officer to Continue Action *  GST authorities’ certification not mandatory for reimbursement, but tax payment must be proven: Karnataka HC *  Contractor can’t seek gst reimbursement through writ when contract has arbitration clause: Karnataka HC *  Unsigned Order Is No Order in Law: AP HC Quashes GST Assessment Order for Want of Officer’s Signature *  Customs Can’t Levy Rs. 1.36 Crore Cost Recovery Charges Without Proof of Full-Day Officer Deployment: CESTAT  *  12% IGST Payable On Imported Dialysis Machine Parts: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Admits Challenge to GST Limitation Extension Notifications; Grants Protection Against Coercive Recovery *  Criminal Case Can’t Run Parallel to GST Proceedings on Same Facts: Allahabad High Court *  Allahabad High Court Stays GST Detention Order; Directs Release of Vehicle and Goods on Deposit of Rs. 1.44 Lakh *  Service Tax Can’t Be Levied on Loss-Making Contracts: Gujarat High Court *  GSTN Mandates Ship-to GSTIN in e-Invoice and e-Way Bill APIs; Introduces Voluntary e-Way Bill Closure Facility from August 1, 2026 *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred When Taxpayer Was Pursuing Rectification Remedy: Telangana High Court *  Absence of E-Way Bill and Transport Documents Justifies Customs Seizure U/s 110: Gauhati HC *  Madras High Court Upholds GST Late Fee and Penalty for Non-Filing of Annual Return, Dismisses Challenge  *  GST Records, Purchase Documents Sufficient to Discharge Burden Under Customs Act: CESTAT Orders Release of 3.65 Kg Gold  *  No Sugar Cess Payable on Sugar Exported Out of India: CESTAT *  Road Construction Services Exempt and SCN Time-Barred: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Based Solely on Form 26AS  *  ITC Freeze Upheld After GST Dept Find Suppliers Were Allegedly Fake Bill-Trading Entities: Madras HC 
Subject News *  Input service benefits can’t be denied: CESTAT allows export refund despite MMTC acting as Canalising agency. *  No service tax demand without proof of service of SCN: CESTAT. *  Service tax demand quashed as dept. fails to prove service of SCN: CESTAT *  GST : Mere allegation of inadequate consideration of reply not enough to invoke writ jurisdiction: Delhi High Court *  Onerous conditions imposed for provisional release of seized imported goods shouldn’t amount to virtual denial of relief: CESTAT. *  GST SCN without alleging fraud cannot invoke sec. 74: Karnataka High Court quashes adjudication order. *  Extended Limitation Can’t Be Invoked Merely on Form 26AS Data: CESTAT *  Revenue-Sharing with Restaurants Not Taxable as Business Support Service: CESTAT *  R. 6(3) Option Can’t Be Forced on Taxpayer; CESTAT Quashes Rs. 12.36 Crore CENVAT Credit Demand *  Excise Duty | Power Consumption Alone Can’t Prove Clandestine Manufacture: Karnataka High Court *  Madras High Court Examines DGGI’s Authority to Issue GST Penalty Orders Under Section 122, Adds DGGI as Party *  Proceedings under omitted r. 96(10) can’t survive without saving clause: andhra pradesh high court quashes gst refund recovery *  Excise duty power consumption alone can’t prove clandestine manufacture: karnataka high court *  Madras high court rules GST show cause notices must disclose grounds for invoking extended limitation *  Court Can’t Direct Extension GST Return Deadlines or Waive Interest and Penalties: Karnataka High Court *  GST Notifications Can’t Go Beyond GST Council Recommendations: Madras High Court Quashes SCN on Branded Pulses *  Appeal Can’t Be Dismissed for Delay When Dept’s Own Order Mis-states Limitation Period: CESTAT *  No Evidence of KYC or Due Diligence Breach By Customs Broker: CESTAT Quashes Licence Revocation in Export Overvaluation Case *  Glucometers Are Chemical Analysis Instruments Classifiable Under Tariff Heading 9027: CESTAT *  Validity of Post-GST Service Tax Proceedings Upheld: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Challenge to S. 73 SCN *  Rectified GST Refund Applications Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred If Original Refund Claim Was Filed Within Limitation: Gujarat HC *  Service Tax Refund Can’t Be Denied as Time-Barred When Levy Itself Is Unconstitutional: Gujarat High Court *  Same Officer Can’t Act As Auditor & Adjudicator: Karnataka High Court *  Karnataka High Court Condones 324-Day Delay, Revives Customs Appeal in Jewellery Pilferage Case  *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Order Passed Ex Parte Despite Prior ITC Reversal; Lifts Bank Attachment *  Tobacco Process Doesn’t Amount to Manufacturing: Madras High Court Quashes Rs. 1.32 Crore Compensation Cess Demand  *  Recovery Notice Unsustainable After Voluntary Reversal of Unutilised Credit: CESTAT  *  GST | ‘System Generated’ SCN Without Officer Details Invalid: Allahabad HC  *  Electronic Records Without Statutory Certification Requirements Can’t Justify Undervaluation Allegations: CESTAT *  Madras High Court Stays GST Order, Finds Prima Facie Merit in Plea Against S. 74 Proceedings Based on S. 73 Intimation  

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