2019 (3) TMI 245 - AT - Service Tax

Taxability - amount received as rent - It is the case of the Revenue that the said amount is taxable under C&F services for which appellant is registered with the authorities - period April 2003 to May 2007 - Held that - The appellant had constructed godowns and rented them out to various institutions/companies to stored their goods. He only received the rent from such companies and was not engaged in C&F services for such clients - the amount of tax of ₹ 7,54,153/- cannot be fixed on the appellant for simple reason that no services were rendered by the appellant and the service tax liability on renting of immovable property came into statute from 01.06.2007 - the impugned order is incorrect and liable to be set aside. Valuation - reimbursement of charges - Held that - The agreement between the two parties indicate that they entered into contractual obligations for reimbursement of expenses which were in the form of godown rent and the decision of Apex Court in the case of Intercontinental Consultants & Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. 2018 (3) TMI 357 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA will apply and any reimbursable expenses during the period in question are not includable in the value of the services rendered. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Taxability of rental income under Clearing & Forwarding Agency Services; Service tax demand on reimbursed rental charges.

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged Order-in-Revision No. 10/2010-HYD-III Adjn. (ST)-COMMN, dated 16.11.2010. The appellant, a Clearing & Forwarding Agent, faced a demand for service tax liability due to rental income activities. The Commissioner reviewed the case and re-issued a show cause notice, leading to confirmed demands, interest, and penalties by the Revenue authorities.

2. The main contention revolved around two issues: rental income without C&F services rendered and rental charges reimbursed for C&F services provided. The appellant argued that pure rental income should not be taxable as the service tax liability for renting immovable property was introduced later. They cited relevant case laws and circulars to support their position and challenged the order on grounds of limitation due to regular filing of returns.

3. The Revenue authorities, supported by the Departmental Representative (DR), argued that all rental charges, including those reimbursed for C&F services, should be taxable. They referenced a Tribunal decision to justify taxing rent received for services rendered.

4. The Tribunal, after reviewing the facts, held that pure rental income received by the appellant for leasing out properties without providing C&F services should not be subject to service tax, especially considering the statutory introduction of tax on renting immovable property from 01.06.2007. Thus, the tax demand related to such pure rent was set aside.

5. Regarding the rental charges reimbursed for C&F services, the Tribunal analyzed the agreements and concluded that the amounts were specifically reimbursed expenses, not part of the value of services rendered. Citing the Apex Court decision, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the order and allowing the appeal.

6. The Tribunal's decision focused on distinguishing between pure rental income and reimbursed rental charges for services rendered, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant on both issues. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

Judgment Summary:
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Hyderabad ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the service tax demands related to pure rental income and reimbursed rental charges for Clearing & Forwarding Agency Services. The Tribunal differentiated between rental income without services rendered and expenses reimbursed for services, ultimately concluding that only the latter was taxable. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief.