2025 (1) TMI 990 - AT - Service Tax

Tribunal Rules Appellant's Services Exempt from Service Tax u/s 65(105)(zzzz) of Finance Act 1994; Appeal Allowed.

M/s. Valvan Village Resorts Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Pune-I

M/s. Valvan Village Resorts Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Pune-I - TMI 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered in this judgment are:Whether the services provided by the Appellant fall under the category of 'Renting of Immovable Property Service' as defined under Section 65(105)(zzzz) of the Finance Act, 1994.Whether the exclusion clause for buildings used solely for accommodation, including hotels, applies to the Appellant's case.Whether the demand for service tax under 'Renting of Immovable Property Service' is sustainable in light of the classification of services as 'hotel accommodation service' under Section 65(105)(zzzzw).2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Classification under 'Renting of Immovable Property Service'Relevant legal framework and precedents: The definition under Section 65(105)(zzzz) includes services related to renting immovable property for business or commerce. The exclusion clause specifies that buildings used solely for accommodation, including hotels, are excluded.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the Appellant was engaged in the hotel business, which is explicitly excluded from the 'Renting of Immovable Property Service' category. The court emphasized that the definition and exclusions under the Finance Act must be strictly interpreted.Key evidence and findings: The conducting agreement indicated that the Appellant owned premises leased for hotel business purposes. This supported the Appellant's claim that the property was used solely for accommodation.Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied the exclusion clause, concluding that the Appellant's services were not taxable under the 'Renting of Immovable Property Service' category.Treatment of competing arguments: The Respondent's argument that the services fell under the taxable category was dismissed based on the clear exclusion for hotel accommodations.Conclusions: The demand for service tax under this category was deemed unsustainable as it contradicted the statutory exclusion.Issue 2: Potential Classification under 'Hotel Accommodation Service'Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 65(105)(zzzzw) defines 'hotel accommodation service' as taxable when provided for less than three months.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal observed that no demand was made under this classification, and the conducting agreement did not specify short-term accommodation.Key evidence and findings: The absence of any stipulation for accommodation of less than three months in the agreement was critical.Application of law to facts: The Tribunal found that the classification under 'hotel accommodation service' was not applicable due to the lack of relevant demand and contractual terms.Treatment of competing arguments: The Tribunal did not need to address competing arguments extensively, as the issue was not raised in the demand notice.Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the demand under 'Renting of Immovable Property Service' was unsustainable, and no alternative classification was applicable.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSPreserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: 'From the above referred provision, it would appear that building used solely for accommodation including hotels are excluded from the purview of 'Renting of Immovable Property Service'. Since allegation in the show-cause notice and findings in the Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal are based on the premises that Appellant was engaged in hotel business.'Core principles established: The exclusion clauses in tax statutes must be strictly interpreted, and demands for service tax must align with statutory definitions and exclusions.Final determinations on each issue: The appeal was allowed, and the order demanding service tax under 'Renting of Immovable Property Service' was set aside, providing consequential relief to the Appellant.