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/2020-2021/3628

Whether the appellants are liable to pay service tax on the rent received for leasing the fit outs when VAT is paid against it?
Khivraj Techpark Pvt Ltd vs The Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai Final Order No. 42117-42119 / 2018 dated 25.07.2018

Issue- Whether the appellants are liable to pay service tax on the rent received for leasing the fit outs when VAT is paid against it?

Brief facts-The appellants have entered into two different agreements for leasing the premises and leasing the fit outs. The fit outs include air conditioners, CCTV, fire alarms, etc. It was noticed that the appellants are not discharging service tax on the fit outs leased to the tenants. The Department was of the view that the appellants are liable to pay service tax on the rent received on leasing the fit outs in the premises. Show Cause Notice was issued and after due process of law, the Original Authority confirmed the demand, interest and imposed penalties. Aggrieved, the appellants are now before the Tribunal.

Appellant Contention- It is argued by him that the leasing of fit outs is a transaction in the nature of transfer of right to use goods and the appellants have discharged sales tax/VAT. The appellant has been thus discharging sales tax on renting of fit outs even prior to introduction of levy of service tax on Renting of Immovable Property Services. The Department has issued these Show Cause Notices for the period June, 2007 to September, 2010, proposing to demand service tax on the amounts received as rent for office fit outs under the category of renting of immovable property service.

A separate agreement was entered with the tenants for leasing the fit outs in the premises and does not form part of renting of immovable property at all. Since the appellants have discharged VAT on the said amount, the Department cannot again levy service tax. Service tax and VAT are mutually exclusive. To support this proposition, he relied upon the decision in the case of Imagic Creative Pvt. Ltd.’s. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes - 2008 (9) S.T.R. 337 (S.C.). He also relied upon the decision in the case of Ascendas IT Park (Chennai) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax - 2018 SCC Online CESTAT 128 in Appeal No. ST/249/2012.
Department Contention-They submitted that the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in the case of Homes Solutions Retails (India) Ltd. Vs. Union of India - 2011 (24) S.T.R. 129 (Del.) has held that services provided along with renting of immovable property is taxable under the said category. Since fit outs are nothing but part of renting of premises, they should also fall under the category of renting of immovable property. Further, as per the lease deed for renting fit outs, the effective control over the fit outs which are leased is on the lessor and not transferred to the tenant. This would show that there is no transfer of right to use or deemed sale and the appellants are liable to pay service tax on the rent received for leasing out fit outs. Thus, contended that the demand raised is legal and proper.
 
Tribunal View and Decision-The decision in the case of Imagic Creative Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has held that service tax and VAT are mutually exclusive. Further, the Tribunal in the case of Ascendas IT Park (Chennai) Ltd. (supra) has considered the very same issue and held that VAT and service tax being mutually exclusive, service tax cannot be demanded on the very same consideration received for renting of movable properties. Since there are two separate agreements for renting of fit outs and renting of premises, it can never be said that the amount received for renting of fit outs/movable properties would fall under renting of immovable properties. Following the above decisions, the impugned orders are set aside.

Comment- This is a path breaking decision because in GST also, due to the concept of composite supply, even after different agreements are being formed, the department demands for the GST. Like in case of sale of land and development of it, if separate agreements are being prepared, AAR rulings have pronounced that GST will be leviable on both supply. It is already known that stamp duty is already being discharged on sale of land. This decision can really be helpful for various taxpayers.

Prepared by – CA Preksha 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