News Update

CLAT 2024 exams to be held on Dec 1NCGG commences Programme for officials of TanzaniaGST - Appellate Authority has not noticed the provisions of Section 12 of the Limitation Act, 1963 which mandates that the day on which the judgment complained of was pronounced, is also to be excluded: HCDefence Secretary commends BRO for playing major role in country's securityGST - If the Proper Officer was of the view that the reply filed was insufficient, he could have sought more clarification - Without providing any such opportunity, impugned order could not have been passed - Matter remanded: HCSC holds influencers, celebrities equally accountable for misleading adsGST - Notice requiring petitioner to furnish additional information/clarification does not mention that petitioner had to appear for personal hearing - Since no opportunity of personal hearing was given, order is unsustainable: HCIndian Naval ships arrive at Singapore; to head towards South China SeaGST - For the purposes of DNB and FNB courses, petitioner clearly falls within the scope of an educational institution imparting education to students enrolled with it as a part of a curriculum - Services exempted: HCIndia's MEDTECH industry holds immense potential: Dr Arunish ChawlaKejriwal’s judicial custody extended till May 20GST - Candidates appearing for the screening tests are not students of the petitioner - Petitioner's claim of exemption on such examination fees is unmerited: HCBrisk voting reported from all 96 LS seats; PM casts vote in AhmedabadGST - NEET examinations are in the nature of an entrance examination - Petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of an exemption by virtue of Serial No.66(aa) of the 2017 Notification, which came into effect on 25.01.2018: HCIndia calls back half of troops stationed at MaldivesIndia-Australia DTAA: Economic Statecraft through TaxRBI alerts against misuse of banking channels for facilitating illegal forex tradingTime Limit to file Appeal in GST Appellate TribunalEC censures Jagan Reddy & Chandrababu Naidu for MCC violationsFrance tells Xi Jinping EU needs protection from China’s cheap importsI-T- Addition cannot be made merely for reason that assessee got property transferred through registered sale without making payment to vendor: ITATI-T- Addition which is not based on the reasons for reopening is un-sustainable sans notice u/s 148 of the ACT: ITATOxygen valve malfunction delays launch of Boeing’s first crewed spacecraftFM administers Oath to Justice Sanjaya Kumar Mishra as first President of GST TribunalGhana agrees to activate UPI links in 6 monthsED seizes about 20 kg gold from locker of a cyber scammer in Haryana
 
ST - One-time maintenance charges collected from flat owner by builder is not chargeable to tax under category of Maintenance and Management of immovable property: CESTAT

 

By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, DEC 19, 2018: THIS is a Revenue appeal.

The respondent is registered under the category of 'Construction of residential complex service, construction of industrial and commercial structures'.

During the course of audit, it was found that in addition to sale price of individual dwelling unit, they had charged and received certain amounts from unit holders as maintenance charges of the building under construction till possession of it is handed over to Society.

The case of the department is that as per paragraph 6 of Circular No. B1/6/2005-TRU dated 27.6.2005 w.e.f. 16.6.2005, maintenance and management of immovable property (in this case, the building under construction till possession is handed over to Society) are provided as per the terms and conditions of the agreement to sale of the property between the dwelling owner and service provider; that these activities fall under the ambit of Service Tax and liable for service tax w.e.f. 16.6.2005.

The adjudicating authority confirmed the service tax demand under the category of Maintenance and Repair service and also imposed penalties.

However, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside this order and, therefore, Revenue is aggrieved by the same.

The AR justified the order of the original authority by placing reliance on the decision in Satya Prakash Builders Pvt. Ltd. - 2017-TIOL-1475-CESTAT-DEL.

The Bench considered the submissions made by the AR and observed thus -

+ Respondent is collecting repair and maintenance charges under the statutory obligation provided in Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963.

+ The respondent is under the obligation of the said Act, collecting the maintenance charges from the dwelling unit owner and transferring it to the actual service provider.

The CESTAT further noted that the issue has been considered by the Tribunal in the case of Kumar Beheray Rathi vs. CCE, Pune-III - 2013-TIOL-1806-CESTAT-MUM and where it is held that -

Appellants are not in the business of maintenance or repair service or management of immovable property - they are collecting one-time maintenance charges from their buyers to whom they have sold flats - they are only paying on behalf of various buyers of flats to various authorities (Municipal Corporation, Revenue authorities etc.) and various service providers (such as security agency, cleaning service providers etc.) and they are not charging anything on their own - the payments are made on cost basis and the same is debited from the deposit account - They act only as trustee or as pure agent - When the co-operative society is formed even the deposit account is shifted to Flat Owner's Co-operative Society - this is a statutory obligation on the appellants in terms of sections 5 & 6 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, sale, management and transfer) Act, 1963 - Appellants cannot be held as provider of maintenance or repair service - Order set aside and appeals allowed.

Following the said judgment, the Tribunal concluded that the maintenance charges collected from the flat owner under the obligation as per the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963, would not be chargeable to tax in the hands of the builder.

The decision cited by the AR was distinguished on the ground that the same did not relate to Maharashtra and no similar Act was invoked.

The impugned order was upheld and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

(See 2018-TIOL-3800-CESTAT-MUM)


POST YOUR COMMENTS
   

TIOL Tube Latest

Shri N K Singh, recipient of TIOL FISCAL HERITAGE AWARD 2023, delivering his acceptance speech at Fiscal Awards event held on April 6, 2024 at Taj Mahal Hotel, New Delhi.


Shri Ram Nath Kovind, Hon'ble 14th President of India, addressing the gathering at TIOL Special Awards event.