2012 (6) TMI 68 - AT - Service Tax

Pre-deposit - D.R. submits that when the taxable entry made clear to bring management, maintenance or repair of any property immovable or not to the fold of Section 65(105)(zzg) read with Section 65(64) Finance Act, 1994, service provided by the appellant is taxable. Held that - document exhibits that it was obligation of lessee to pay the annual consideration to the appellant to avail certain services under that deed and appellant had duty to the lessees under law in terms of contractual obligation, Maintenance of the industrial area was obligation of the Appellant. Such prima facie observations bring the appellant to the fold of taxable entry read with aiding definition as suggested by Revenue aforesaid. appellant directed to make pre-deposit

Summary

Issues:
1. Taxability of Development Fund under Section 65(105)(zzg) of the Finance Act, 1994.
2. Applicability of penalty under Section 76.
3. Requirement of pre-deposit by the appellant.

Analysis:
1. The appellant contended that the department wrongly taxed the Development Fund without a valid basis as there was no liability under Section 65(105)(zzg) of the Finance Act, 1994. The reduction in demand was justified as a part of the demand was unsustainable, especially regarding the non-taxability of receipts related to immovable property for a specific period. The appellant's registration under the Finance Act, 1994, and its status as an instrumentality of the State of Chhattisgarh warranted leniency in the case.

2. On the contrary, the Revenue argued that the services provided by the appellant fell within the taxable entry of management, maintenance, or repair of any property, whether immovable or not, under Section 65(105)(zzg) read with Section 65(64) of the Finance Act, 1994. Therefore, the Revenue insisted on the necessity of a pre-deposit.

3. Upon examining the lease deed in question, it was established that the lessee had an obligation to pay annual consideration to the appellant for specific services as per the terms of the lease. The appellant, in turn, had responsibilities towards the lessees as outlined in the law and the contractual obligations. The maintenance of the industrial area was a duty of the appellant, aligning with the taxable entry suggested by the Revenue.

4. Considering the appellant's status as an instrumentality of the state but an independent corporation, the Tribunal directed the appellant to make a pre-deposit of Rs. 20 lakhs within 12 weeks and comply by a specified date. Subject to compliance, the realization of the remaining balance amount was stayed during the pendency of the appeal.