2019 (3) TMI 1229 - AT - Service Tax

Classification of services - Renting of Immovable Property Service or not - compensation awarded by the Additional District Judge, Civil Court, Mujaffarnagar - Held that - There is no suggestive definition in the said category of Renting of Immovable Property so as to treat the compensation, which can be penal in nature or as damages to the property, or as a costs of litigation to the petitioners. The fact that compensation was declared as one of the taxable services w.e.f. 01/07/2012 also indicates that prior to the said date no tax can be collected on the compensation either indirectly or by treating the same as rent received. As such, there is no justification in the Revenue s stand - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of whether compensation awarded by the Additional District Judge can be considered as assessable value of renting of the property for Service Tax liability.

Analysis:
The case involves a dispute regarding the Service Tax liability of the appellant, who rented out commercial premises falling under the Small Scale Exemption Notification. The issue arose when the appellant received compensation of ?30,000 per month as ordered by the Civil Court in addition to rent. The Revenue contended that the compensation should be treated as rent, causing the appellant to exceed the exemption limit and face a demand for Service Tax amounting to ?2,14,589 along with penalties. The main issue to be decided was whether the compensation awarded by the Civil Court could be considered as part of the assessable value for Service Tax under the category of "Renting of Immovable Property."

The Tribunal carefully analyzed the order of the Civil Court and observed that the compensation awarded was distinct from the rent amount. The Court's decision clearly indicated that the compensation was in the nature of damages awarded to the appellant and not additional rent. The Tribunal emphasized that the compensation amount of ?30,000 per month was unrelated to the rent amount of ?8,267, as specified in the Court's order. Therefore, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's interpretation that the compensation should be treated as rent for Service Tax purposes.

Furthermore, the Tribunal examined the definition of "Renting of Immovable Property" and emphasized that only the consideration received for the use of the property could be considered as rent for Service Tax purposes. The Tribunal noted that there was no provision in the definition to include any amount received beyond the rent as part of the taxable amount. Additionally, the Tribunal clarified that since the compensation was received before the introduction of Negative List Taxation, where certain transactions were declared taxable services, the compensation received by the appellant could not be considered taxable under the previous regime.

The Tribunal agreed with the appellant's contention that there was no basis in the Revenue's stand to treat the compensation as taxable under the category of "Renting of Immovable Property." Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal on its merits, providing consequential relief to the appellant. The Tribunal did not address the appellant's plea regarding the extended period of limitation as the appeal was decided in favor of the appellant based on the main issue of the compensation's taxability.