TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>CESTAT remands service tax case on renting immovable property during sovereign functions back to adjudicating authority</h1> CESTAT Chennai remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority regarding levy of service tax on renting of immovable property services while discharging ... Levy of service tax - Renting of Immovable Property Services - providing services / facilities while discharging sovereign functions - HELD THAT:- The Tribunal in the appellant’s own case had occasion to consider the similar issue. After taking note of the judgement passed by the Hon’ble High Court in the case of Cuddalore Municipality Vs. Joint Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Tiruchirappalli [2021 (4) TMI 500 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] and St. Thomas Mount Cum Pallavaram Cantonment Board Vs. Additional Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Chennai [2023 (4) TMI 1024 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] wherein the Tribunal remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority to reconsider the issue afresh. After giving the appellant an opportunity to put forward evidence and also for personal hearing. The matter requires to be remanded to the adjudicating authority who is directed to consider the issue afresh after giving an opportunity to the appellant to furnish evidence and for personal hearing - appeals are allowed by way of remand. Issues Involved:1. Levy of service tax on various services provided by municipalities.2. Sovereign functions and exemption from service tax.3. Reverse Charge Mechanism.4. Limitation and suppression of facts.Detailed Analysis:1. Levy of Service Tax on Various Services Provided by Municipalities:The core issue in these appeals is whether the demands of service tax under various services, including 'Renting of Immovable Property Services,' are sustainable. The appellants, being local authorities, argued that the services provided by them are in the discharge of sovereign functions and should be exempt from service tax. The original authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the demand for service tax, which the appellants contested before the Tribunal.The Tribunal referenced the case of Cuddalore Municipality Vs. Joint Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Tiruchirappalli [2021 (55) GSTL 397 (Mad.)], where it was held that services provided by municipalities as part of their sovereign functions are exempt from service tax. This judgment was significant in determining the appellants' liability.2. Sovereign Functions and Exemption from Service Tax:The appellants argued that the fees and charges collected for services like bus stands, public toilets, and slaughterhouses are part of their sovereign functions as per Article 243W of the Constitution of India. The Tribunal noted that the Hon'ble High Court in the Cuddalore Municipality case had held that such services are outside the purview of service tax.The Tribunal also considered the Madurai Corporation Vs. The Commissioner of Central Excise [W.P.(MD) No. 7559 of 2015], where it was held that municipalities are liable to pay service tax for renting immovable properties, following the decision in G.V. Matheswaran vs. the Union of India [2014-TIOL-2545-HC-MAD-ST].Given the conflicting judgments, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter to the adjudicating authority to reconsider whether the services provided by the municipalities are sovereign functions and thus exempt from service tax.3. Reverse Charge Mechanism:The appellants contended that part of the demand was raised on a reverse charge basis, arguing that they are not liable to pay service tax under this mechanism. The Tribunal did not provide a detailed analysis on this issue but included it in the remand for the adjudicating authority to reconsider.4. Limitation and Suppression of Facts:The appellants argued that as a local authority, they should not be accused of suppressing facts with the intent to evade payment of service tax. The Tribunal noted that there was no positive act of suppression alleged in the Show Cause Notice against the municipalities. The Tribunal directed the adjudicating authority to consider the issue of limitation afresh during the remand proceedings.Conclusion:The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matters to the adjudicating authority to reconsider the issues afresh. This includes examining whether the services provided by the municipalities are sovereign functions exempt from service tax, the applicability of the reverse charge mechanism, and the issue of limitation. The adjudicating authority is directed to give the appellants an opportunity to present evidence and for a personal hearing. All issues are left open for reconsideration.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
