2018 (7) TMI 1383 - AT - Service Tax

Management, Maintenance or Repair Service - the respondent has charged various amounts by way of deposits from the buyers/ clients of the respondent in respect of the residential complex constructed by them - whether the security deposits collected by the respondent, is to be taken as consideration for the providing of Maintenance of Immovable Property Service ? Held that - Identical issue stands decided by the Tribunal in the case of Kumar Beheray Rathi 2013 (12) TMI 269 - CESTAT MUMBAI , wherein under similar circumstances, the Tribunal has held that the levy of Service Tax under MMR was not justified. Demand of service tax not justified - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of Service Tax liability on security deposits for maintenance of residential complex.

Analysis:

The appeal was filed by the Revenue challenging the dropping of Service Tax demand by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding security deposits collected by the respondent for maintenance of a residential complex. The Revenue contended that the deposits were taken for the purpose of maintenance of the apartments and had a direct connection with the services provided by the respondent. The Revenue argued that the Service Tax demand was justified based on this premise.

On the other hand, the respondent argued that the collected amounts were non-refundable deposits transferred to the Resident Welfare Association once formed. The respondent relied on previous tribunal decisions to support their stance that the levy of Service Tax under the category of 'Management, Maintenance or Repair Service' was not justified in similar circumstances.

The Tribunal examined the records and arguments presented by both sides. The key issue was whether the security deposits collected by the respondent constituted consideration for providing 'Maintenance of Immovable Property Service'. The lower authority had determined that the deposits were collected as security and were not consideration flowing to the respondent for services provided.

The Tribunal referred to a previous case where it was established that the appellants were not in the business of maintenance or repair service or management of immovable property. The appellants were acting as trustees or pure agents, paying on behalf of the flat owners for various services without charging anything on their own. The Tribunal concluded that the appellants were not providing maintenance or repair services to the flat buyers and were merely fulfilling a statutory obligation.

Based on the precedent and the specific circumstances of the case, the Tribunal upheld the lower authority's decision and rejected the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the impugned order, thereby settling the Service Tax liability issue concerning the security deposits collected by the respondent for maintenance purposes.