Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *   CBIC issues draft rules for Customs valuation *  Top Headlines: Threshold for Benami deals, green bond investors, and more *  Govt aims 1-hour clearance for goods at all ports *  Exporters Allowed To Use RoDTEP, RoSCTL Scrips To Pay Customs Duty, Transfer Them; Rules Amended *  Millions of labourers to be affected by brick producers’ strike over hike in GST, coal rates *  Inauguration of ‘kendriya GST parisar’ *  Transporter can seek Release of Conveyance alone, not Goods under GST Act: Madras HC *  GST: Quoting of DIN Mandatory for Responding to Notice, Govt Modifies Portal *  Firms can soon file claims for GST credits of ?400 cr *  CBIC issues modalities for filing transitional credit under GST. *  Mumbai: Man creates 36 fake GST firms, arrested for input tax credit fraud of Rs 23 cr *  Report to restructure Commerce Ministry under study; idea is to set up trade promotion body: Goyal *  Firms can soon file claims for GST credits of ?400 cr *  Gambling Alert! Govt May Levy Up To 28% GST; UP, Bengal Back Move *  EPFO backs raising retirement age to ease pressure on pension funds *  India Moving Up Power Scale, Set to Become Third Largest Economy By 2030 *  Airfares Get Expensive: What Changes for Flyers From Today? *  IRCTC Latest News: Passengers to Pay More For Cancelling Confirmed Rail Tickets Soon. *  IBC prevails over Customs Act, says Supreme Court. *  As GST enters sixth year, a time for evaluation and reassessment *  There’s GST on daily essentials as Centre needs money to buy MLAs: Arvind Kejriwal *  Now, GST on cancellation of confirmed train tickets, hotel bookings *  GST kitty for top States could rise 20% in FY23, says Crisil *  French customs officials seize another cargo vessel over Russia sanctions *  TradeLens builds on Asia momentum with Pakistan Customs deal *  Hike tax on tobacco, reduce affordability & increase revenue: Civil society organizations to GST council *  Bihar: ?10 crore tax evasion on tobacco products detected in raids *  Centre failed on GST, COVID; would it be anti-national? Rajan on Infosys row *  Service Tax not Chargeable on Income Tax TDS portion paid by recipient: CESTAT grants relief to TVS *  Foreign portfolio investors make net investment of Rs 7575cr in Sep so far
Subject News *  Run-up to Budget: Monetary threshold for GST offences may rise to Rs 25 cr *   GST (Tax) E-invoice Must For Businesses With Over Rs 5 Crore Annual Turnover *   Both Central GST and excise duty can be imposed on tobacco, rules Karnataka high court *   CBIC Issues Clarification On Extended Timelines For GST Compliance *   CBIC Issues Clarification On Extended Timelines For GST Compliance *  Budget 2023- 9.6 crore gas connections *  GST: Tamil Nadu Issues Instructions for Assessment and Adjudication Proceedings *  GST: CBIC Extends Last Date for filing of ITC *  GST collection in September surpasses Rs 1.4 lakh crore for straight seventh time *  Dollar smuggling case: Customs chargesheet names M Sivasankar as key conspirator. *  Hike in GST rates fuels inflation *  Assam: CBI arrests GST commissioner in Guwahati *  GST fraud worth ?824cr by 15 insurance Cos detected *  India proposes 15% customs duties on 22 items imported from UK *  Decriminalising certain offences under GST on cards *  Surge in GST collections more due to higher inflation: India Ratings *  MNRE Notifies BCD and Hike in GST Rates as ‘Change in Law’ Events But With a Condition | Mercom India *   Solar projects awarded before customs duty change allowed cost pass-through *  Rajasthan High Court Dismisses Writ Petitions Challenging Levy Of GST On Royalty *   GST revenue in September likely at Rs 1.45 lakh crore *  Govt working on decriminalising certain offences under GST, lower compounding charge *  Building an institution like GST Council takes time, trashing is easy: Sitharaman *  GST collections in Sept may touch ?1.5 lakh crore *  KTR asks Centre to withdraw GST on handlooms *  After Gameskraft, More Online Gaming Startups To Receive GST Tax Claims *  Madras HC: AAR Application Filed Under VAT Does Not Survive After GST Enactment *  Threshold for criminal offences under GST law may be raised *  Bengaluru: Gaming company faces biggest GST notice of Rs 21,000 crore *  CBIC clarifies Classification of Cranes for GST, Customs Duty *  Customs seize gold hidden in bicycle in Kerala airport  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/CASE LAW/2015-16/2703

Whether service tax is leviable on security deposit given for lease?
Case:- SAMIR RAJENDRA SHAH VS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KOLHAPUR

Citation:-2015 (37) S.T.R. 154 (Tri. - Mumbai)

Brief Facts:-The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order demanding Service Tax on security deposit paid on Renting of Immovable Property, the lower authorities not quantified the interest on Service Tax paid by them and consequent penalties imposed on them.
Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is owner of immovable property and the same was given on rent to various parties. As per the agreement entered between the lessee and the owner, the lessee has to pay some amount towards security deposit and monthly rent on the agreed terms. There was a clause in the agreement that the Service Tax shall be borne by the lessee. In these set of facts, demand of Service Tax was confirmed against the appellant on the total amount i.e. security deposit and rent received by the appellant from lessee during the period 1-6-2007 to 31-3-2012. During adjudication, the appellant pleaded that they should be given the benefit of Section 80(2) of the Finance Act, 1994 as they have paid the entire amount of Service Tax prior to 28-11-2012, therefore, penalties cannot be imposed. Adjudication took place and Service Tax was demanded on whole of the amount of security deposit and rent received from the lessee by the appellant and benefit of Section 80(2) was not given to the appellant. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant is before Tribunal.

Appellant contentions:- The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that no Service Tax is payable on the security deposit received by the appellant from the lessee as the said amount is refundable at the time of termination of lease/rent agreement of the property. Therefore, the same does not form a part of services provided by the appellant. It is further submitted that the appellant was under bonafide belief that the Service Tax on renting of immovable property is not payable by them as the dispute, whether on renting of immovable property the service is taxable, is still pending before the Hon’ble Apex Court. Therefore, they have not collected the Service Tax from the lessee. In these circumstances, the amount collected by the appellant as rent may be treated as cum-Service Tax amount. If this is to be taken into consideration then they have paid the whole of the Service Tax before 28-11-2012 therefore, they are entitled for the benefit of Section 80(2) of the Finance Act, 1994. In these circumstances, he prays that the impugned order is required to be set aside.

Respondent contentions:-  On the other hand, the learned A.R. submits that as per the agreement, the Service Tax is to be paid separately. In these circumstances, the amount paid by the appellant has not to be considered as cum-Service Tax. Therefore, on that component, the appellant is required to pay Service Tax. As the appellant has not paid full Service Tax, therefore, they are not entitled for the benefit of Section 80(2) of the Finance Act, 1994.

Reasoning of Judgment:- Considered the submissions made by both sides.
The appellant has contested only the quantum of Service Tax but not the levy of Service Tax. Therefore, we have to consider the issue of quantum of tax on which the appellant has to pay the Service Tax. Admittedly, the security deposit collected by the appellant is refundable at the time of termination of lease/rent agreement. Therefore, the said security deposit cannot form a part of service provided by the appellant. Therefore, on the said amount, Service Tax is not payable. We have examined the copy of the agreement produced by the appellant. As per the agreement, the Service Tax is payable separately by the lessee. As the appellant has not recovered Service Tax from the lessee, they may recover separately. Therefore, the contention of the appellant as they have not recovered the Service Tax from the lessee, the rent recovered by them be treated as cum-Service Tax is not acceptable. In these circumstances, we hold that the rent received by the appellant shall be treated as gross value of taxable service and on the said amount the appellant is required to pay Service Tax.
We further find that on the understanding of the appellant that what amount of rent they received the same is treatable as cum-Service Tax, therefore, they have not paid full amount of Service Tax. This understanding by the appellant is not acceptable. In these circumstances, substantial benefit of Section 80(2) cannot be denied. In these circumstances, we hold that the appellant is entitled for the benefit of dropping the penalty on the appeal as per Section 80(2) of the Finance Act, 1994.
With these terms, we hold as under:-
(a) On Security Deposit no Service Tax is payable.
(b) Rent received by the appellant shall be treated as the value of taxable service and Service Tax is payable separately.
(c) No penalty is leviable on the appellant.
Appeal is disposed of in the above terms.

Decision:-  Appeal disposed off.

Comment:- The Crux of the case is that Service Tax is not leviable on the amount deposited as “Security Deposit” in case of Renting of Immovable Property service because Security amount is refundable at the time of termination of lease/rent agreement of property, therefore, it will not form part of services provided.Moreover if the agreement contains condition that Service Tax will be paid separately by lessee & may be recovered separately by assessee i.e; the owner of property, then in such case, Rent to be treated as gross value of taxable service & assessee will be liable to pay Service Tax on that amount. In such case, the benefit of cum-tax is not available to the assessee.

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