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/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