Local bodies liable for service tax on property rentals, exemptions denied, penalties set aside

The court held that the local bodies are liable to pay service tax for renting of immovable property services as demanded by the respondents. The court found that the local bodies did not qualify for exemption under the Mega Exemption Notification and upheld the imposition of service tax along with interest. However, the court set aside the penalties imposed on the local bodies, considering their public service nature and lack of fraudulent intent. The demands were deemed within the limitation period, and the writ petitions were partly allowed with no costs awarded.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to adjudication orders levying service tax, interest, and penalty by local bodies for renting of immovable property service/mandap keeper service. Interpretation of Section 65(105)(zzzz) of the Finance Act, 1994 regarding taxable services. Exemption under Mega Exemption Notification No.25/2012 for services by governmental authority in relation to functions entrusted to a municipality under Article 243 W of the Constitution. Liability of local bodies to pay service tax and penalty. Application of limitation period for demands.

Analysis:

1. The writ petitions challenge adjudication orders levying service tax, interest, and penalty on local bodies for renting of immovable property service/mandap keeper service. The contention is that the local bodies did not register or pay service tax initially, leading to the impugned orders. The petitioners argue that they qualify for exemption under Serial No.39 of Mega Exemption Notification No.25/2012 as they discharge functions under Article 243W of the Constitution, making them governmental authorities.

2. The interpretation of Section 65(105)(zzzz) of the Finance Act, 1994 is crucial. The petitioners argue that the term "person" does not include local authorities within its definitional sweep. However, the Division Bench of the Madras High Court has previously upheld the validity of this section, stating that local bodies can pass on the burden to the service recipient. Additionally, the Division Bench held that local bodies are liable to pay service tax for renting of immovable properties services, setting a binding precedent.

3. Regarding the liability of local bodies to pay service tax and penalty, the court considered the argument that no penalty should be levied on local bodies due to their statutory obligations and lack of fraudulent intent. Tribunals across India have consistently waived penalties for local bodies, noting their public service nature and non-profit intent. The court upheld this view and set aside the imposition of penalties on the petitioners.

4. The application of the limitation period for demands was also analyzed. The court held that the demands were within time as the petitioners did not register immediately with the department. The contention that the extended limitation period could not be invoked against local bodies was rejected, citing a Chhattisgarh High Court decision that non-registration amounts to suppression of facts, justifying the extended period.

5. In conclusion, the court held that the petitioners are liable to pay service tax as demanded by the respondents along with interest. The demands were deemed within the limitation period, and the imposition of penalties on the petitioners was set aside. The writ petitions were partly allowed, with no costs awarded, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

---