2016 (4) TMI 985 - AT - Service Tax

Service tax liability - Renting of Immovable Property Services - Section 65(105)(zzzz) of the Finance Act, 1994 - Amounts collected as rent by providing on lease various commercial and business properties to outsiders or otherwise - Held that - there is no exemption granted to any municipal council on the rent received by leasing the commercial properties and accordingly, the main contention of the appellant that they are providing sovereign function while renting out property is rejected. The service tax liability and the interest thereof is upheld and should be calculated on the amounts received by the appellant as cum-tax amount. Imposition of penalties - Held that - the appellant being municipal council could not have had any intention to evade service tax liability. Accordingly, by invoking the provisions of section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994, the penalties imposed are set aside. - Appeal disposed of

Summary

Issues:
Service tax liability on rent collected for leasing commercial properties during a specific period.

Analysis:
The appeal in question was against Order-in-Appeal No. P-III/RS/07/2012 dated 23/01/2012. The central issue to be determined was whether, during the period from 01-10-2010 to 31-03-2011, the appellant was obligated to discharge service tax liability on amounts collected as rent for leasing various commercial and business properties to outsiders. Upon hearing both sides and examining the records, it was established that the amounts received by the appellant for renting out properties fell under the taxable category of "Renting of Immovable Property Services" as per section 65(105)(zzzz) of the Finance Act, 1994. It was undisputed that the appellant had collected rent for various commercial properties while leasing them out. The tribunal concluded that no exemption was granted to any municipal council on the rent received from leasing commercial properties. Therefore, the argument that the appellant was engaged in a sovereign function while renting out the property was rejected. Consequently, the tribunal upheld the service tax liability and directed the calculation of the said liability on the amounts received by the appellant as cum-tax amount.

Regarding penalties, it was noted that as a municipal council, the appellant could not have had any intention to evade service tax liability. Consequently, the tribunal, invoking the provisions of section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994, set aside the penalties that had been imposed. The appeal was thus disposed of in accordance with the findings and decisions outlined above. The operative order was pronounced in court, bringing the matter to a conclusion.