TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tenant ruled not a 'Service Provider' for service tax on renting, lacks standing to challenge.</h1> <h3>DEVYANI INTERNATIONAL Versus UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS</h3> The court dismissed the challenge to the imposition of service tax on renting, ruling that a tenant cannot be considered a 'Service Provider' for service ... Service tax on renting - petitioner only a tenant in occupation of the premises which a let out by the landlord subject to the conditions in the contract - petitioner not a ‘Service Provider’, he has no locus standi to challenge the impositions of service tax on renting - As the ‘tenant does not fill within the definition of ‘Service Provider’, the petitions are disposed of as not maintainable Issues:Challenge to imposition of service tax on rentingAnalysis:The judgment addresses the challenge to the imposition of service tax on renting. The petitioner, a lessee of the premises, contests the imposition of service tax following an amendment to the Finance Act in 2010. Prior to the amendment, tax collection was limited to services other than renting. However, the amendment expanded the scope to include service tax on renting itself, leading to the petitioner's challenge.The court deliberates on whether a tenant can be considered a 'Service Provider' in the context of service tax on renting. It is highlighted that the tenant, as a lessee, does not fall under the category of a service provider. Additionally, the judgment emphasizes the existence of a privity of contract between the landlord and tenant, regardless of the validity of service tax on renting.Moreover, the court distinguishes the roles of the landlord and tenant in the payment of rent and service tax. Whether the landlord collects and pays the tax or covers the liability without involving the tenant is deemed a separate matter. As the petitioner, being the tenant, is not classified as a 'Service Provider,' they lack the standing to challenge the imposition of service tax on renting. Consequently, the petitions are dismissed as not maintainable due to the tenant's exclusion from the definition of a 'Service Provider.'The judgment concludes by stating that since the petitions have been disposed of, there is no need to consider the application for vacating the stay. The decision rests on the tenant's lack of standing as a service provider, thereby leading to the dismissal of the petitions challenging the imposition of service tax on renting.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
