2024 (3) TMI 1281 - AT - Service Tax

Karnataka State Government department exempt from service tax on employee life insurance premiums under welfare scheme

M/s. The Director, Karnataka Government Insurance Department (KGID) Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Bangalore

CESTAT Bangalore held that a Karnataka State Government department collecting life insurance premiums from employees under a welfare scheme performs a ... Levy of service tax - Life Insurance Service - premium collected by the appellant for providing life insurance service to its employees - Renting of Immovable Property Service or not - amount received towards renting of immovable property - HELD THAT:- Undisputedly, the appellant is a department of Karnataka State Government and not an insurance company and in pursuance to the Karnataka Government Servant’s (Compulsory Life Insurance) Rules, 1958 under the welfare scheme applicable to all Government employees irrespective of their status, collected contribution of 6.5% of mean pay as monthly premium towards the policy. The Service Tax Department proposed to levy service tax on the premium so collected by the appellant. On the said issue, this Tribunal in appellant own case, considering the Circular dt. 18/12/2006 issued by the Board, held that the amount of premium collected in rendering life insurance service is in the nature of sovereign function and not leviable to service tax - there are no reason not to follow the aforesaid finding of the Tribunal as no contrary decisions have been placed by the Revenue. Levy of service tax on renting of immovable property - HELD THAT:- The appellant is not contesting the same and also covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI, NEW MANDI YARD, ALWAR VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX, ALWAR [2022 (2) TMI 1113 - SUPREME COURT]. Since the issue relates to interpretation of law relating to applicability of service tax on ‘Renting of Immovable Property Service’ during the period in question and conflicting opinions on the subject expressed, levy of penalty for non-payment of service tax on the said service cannot be sustained. The demands relating to service tax on life insurance service provided to the employees are hereby dropped and service tax on renting of immovable property in both the appeals are confirmed with interest. However, penalties imposed for failure to discharge service tax on renting of immovable property are hereby dropped. The impugned orders are modified - Appeal disposed off. Issues Involved:1. Whether the premium collected for providing life insurance service is taxable.2. Whether the amount received for renting of immovable property is taxable.Summary:The appeals were filed against Orders-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Bangalore. The appellant, a department of the Karnataka Government, provided life insurance service to employees during specific periods. Two show-cause notices were issued for non-payment of service tax on insurance service and renting of immovable property service. The Commissioner confirmed the demand of service tax, interest, and penalties under various sections of the Finance Act, 1994, leading to the present appeals.Regarding the life insurance service, the appellant argued that the service falls under sovereign functions, citing a Circular from the Board. The Tribunal agreed, stating that the premium collected is in the nature of a sovereign function and not subject to service tax. The Tribunal referenced the Circular and previous case law to support its decision, emphasizing that the activity is mandatory and statutory, fulfilling sovereign obligations.On the issue of renting of immovable property, the appellant did not contest the levy of service tax, aligning with a recent Supreme Court judgment. Due to conflicting opinions on the applicability of service tax during the relevant period, the Tribunal ruled that penalties for non-payment of service tax on renting of immovable property cannot be sustained. The demands related to service tax on life insurance service were dropped, while service tax on renting of immovable property was confirmed with interest. Penalties for failure to discharge service tax on renting of immovable property were also dropped. The impugned orders were modified accordingly, and the appeals were disposed of in favor of the appellant.