Service Tax Applicable on Commercial Rental by Charitable Hospitals Despite Trust Ownership

The tribunal held that renting immovable property for commercial use by a charitable hospital is subject to service tax under Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994, even if owned by a charitable trust. Despite ongoing legal disputes, the tribunal waived penalties but upheld interest on delayed payments, acknowledging the complexity of the issue.

---

---

Issues:
1. Whether renting of immovable property for commercial use by a charitable hospital is liable for service tax under Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The main issue in this case revolves around the taxability of renting immovable property for commercial use by a charitable hospital under clause 105 (zzzz) of Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant, a charitable trust, argued that their property should be exempt from service tax due to their charitable status. They pointed out that the charitable institution became taxable only after a specific date and highlighted the ongoing legal disputes at the Bombay High Court and Delhi High Court, with the matter pending before the Supreme Court. The appellant also mentioned a special provision in Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994, for waiver of penalties. However, the tribunal found that even though the appellants were a charitable trust, the property in question was rented out for commercial purposes, making it liable for service tax. Since there was no specific exemption for renting by a charitable trust, the tribunal upheld the service tax demand.

Issue 2:
Regarding penalties, the tribunal acknowledged the complexity and contentious nature of the issue, as evidenced by conflicting judgments from different high courts and the matter pending before the Supreme Court. Considering the appellant's genuine belief regarding the taxability of the services, the tribunal decided to set aside the penalties imposed by the lower authorities under Sections 70, 76, and 78 of the Finance Act. However, the tribunal maintained the interest on delayed payment of service tax. Ultimately, the appeals were partly allowed with penalties being waived but interest being upheld.

In conclusion, the tribunal ruled that renting of immovable property for commercial use by a charitable hospital is subject to service tax, even if the property is owned by a charitable trust. However, due to the complexity and ongoing legal disputes surrounding the issue, the tribunal decided to waive penalties while upholding the interest on delayed payments.

---