9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (4) TMI 968 - AT - Service TaxLevy of service tax - renting of immovable property service - invocation of extended period of limitation - HELD THAT - Admittedly the appellant did not pay the service tax during the relevant period. It is also indisputable that the Delhi High Court had vide its order dated 18-04-2009 in Home Solution Retail India Ltd 2009 (4) TMI 14 - DELHI HIGH COURT held that Section 65(105)(zzzz) does not in terms entail that the renting out of immovable property for use in the course or furtherance of business of commerce would by itself constitute a taxable service and be exigible to service tax under the said Act. Admittedly the jurisdictional range officer had deemed it fit only in November 2011 followed by a reminder in December 2011 to advise the appellant to pay the service tax rent on the rent received during 2008-2009 and it was only almost two years thereafter on 04.10.2013 that the SCN was issued invoking the extended period. Evidently there was no protective SCN issued during the interregnum when the levy was held untenable by the Delhi High Court s Judgement and clarity thereafter ensued only after the retrospective amendment introduced after the enactment of the Finance Bill 2010 which the appellant could not have the prescience to know. Hence the appellant was justified in its contention that during the period the issue was debatable and therefore the question of sustaining the demand by invoking the extended period of limitation does not arise. Conclusion - The demand is hit by limitation the SCN dated 04.10.2013 having been issued well beyond one year from the relevant date. Appeal allowed.
The core legal question considered in this case is whether the demand for service tax on "renting of immovable property" services rendered during the period April 2008 to March 2009, raised by the department through a show cause notice dated 04.10.2013, is tenable or barred by limitation. Associated issues include the applicability of retrospective amendments to the Finance Act, the validity of invoking extended limitation periods, and the imposition of penalties under relevant provisions of the Finance Act.
The primary issue centers on the legality and timing of the service tax demand for renting immovable property services during the disputed period, particularly in light of judicial pronouncements and legislative amendments that affected the taxability of such services. Regarding the relevant legal framework, the service tax on renting of immovable property was introduced w.e.f. 1-6-2007 under Section 65(105)(zzzz) of the Finance Act. However, the Delhi High Court in a 2009 judgment held that mere renting of immovable property does not constitute a taxable service under the Act. Subsequently, the Finance Act, 2010 introduced a retrospective amendment clarifying that renting of immovable property per se constitutes a taxable service from 1-6-2007, effectively overruling the Delhi High Court decision. The Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC) issued a clarification in 2010 emphasizing this retrospective intent to bring certainty to the tax liability. The appellant had leased out premises during 2008-09 and received rent but did not pay service tax. The department issued letters in 2011 advising payment of service tax, and after no response, issued a show cause notice in 2013 invoking the extended limitation period. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand with interest and penalties, which was upheld on appeal except for one penalty. The appellant challenged the demand before the Tribunal. The Court analyzed the issue by first acknowledging the undisputed fact that the appellant had not paid service tax on the rent received during the relevant period. However, the Court noted the Delhi High Court's 2009 ruling that renting immovable property was not taxable service, creating a bona fide doubt about liability during that time. The retrospective amendment in 2010 clarified legislative intent but came after the period in question. The department's initial notices in 2011 and the show cause notice in 2013 were issued well after the Delhi High Court decision and the retrospective amendment. The Court reasoned that since the issue of taxability was debatable during the relevant period, and the retrospective amendment was enacted only in 2010, the appellant could not have been expected to pay service tax or anticipate the retrospective validation of the levy. The extended limitation period invoked by the department was therefore not applicable, as no protective notice was issued during the interregnum when the levy was held invalid. The show cause notice issued in 2013 was beyond the one-year limitation period from the relevant date, rendering the demand time-barred. In support, the Court relied heavily on precedents, notably the Tribunal's decision in Jindal Vegetable Products Ltd, where a similar issue was adjudicated. The Tribunal held that the appellant could not be accused of suppressing information when there was a bona fide doubt due to conflicting judicial opinions, and the retrospective amendment neutralized the earlier judgment. The Supreme Court's ruling in Continental Foundation Jt. Venture was also cited, emphasizing that extended limitation periods cannot be invoked where there was genuine doubt about the interpretation of law. The Tribunal further held that penalties under Section 78 would not attract in such circumstances, as the elements for invoking extended limitation and imposing penalties are similar. Additional Tribunal decisions-Utkal Builders Limited, Aditya Homes (P) Ltd, Infinity Infotech Parks Ltd, and Venus Laminations P Ltd-were cited, all following the same reasoning that demands for service tax on renting immovable property services during the disputed period are time-barred due to the retrospective nature of the amendment and the bona fide doubt prevailing at the time. The Court also addressed the respondent's argument that the retrospective amendment crystallized the appellant's liability and that the appellant's doubt on constitutional validity could not absolve it from payment. The Court rejected this, emphasizing that the appellant's failure to pay service tax during the period was understandable given the legal uncertainty, and that the retrospective amendment's effect does not validate demands beyond the limitation period. Consequently, the Court concluded that the demand for service tax, interest, and penalties imposed by the original and appellate authorities were untenable. The show cause notice issued in 2013 was barred by limitation, and the extended period could not be invoked due to the bona fide doubt on taxability prevailing during the relevant period. The penalties imposed under Section 78 were also unsustainable on the same grounds. Significant holdings include the following verbatim excerpt from the Tribunal's decision in Jindal Vegetable Products Ltd, which the Court adopted: "There is no dispute that the activity of the appellant was renting of immovable property. Though 'service in relation to renting of immovable property' had been brought within the service tax net w.e.f. 1-6-2007 by introducing Section 65(105)(zzzz), the validity of this levy had been challenged before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide judgment dated 18th April, 2009 in the case of Home Solution Retail India (supra) held that mere renting of immovable property by itself cannot be regarded as service and would not attract service tax. It is only by retrospective amendment introduced w.e.f. 1-6-2007 by Finance Act, 2010, that the renting of immovable property by itself became a taxable service neutralising the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court. In the circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the appellant cannot be accused of suppressing the relevant information from the department as during the period of dispute there was doubt about the levy of service on the renting of immovable property till the dispute was put to an end by retrospective amendment made by Finance Act, 2010. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Continental Foundation Jt. Venture reported in 2007 (216) E.L.T. 177 (S.C.), has held that when during the period of dispute there was doubt about interpretation of some provisions of law on account of conflicting judgments, which were later on resolved by a Larger Bench, the extended period under proviso to Section 11A(1) cannot be invoked." The core principles established are:
On the final determinations:
|
