2025 (3) TMI 744 - AT - Service Tax

One-time premium for property rental constitutes taxable service alongside rent, exceeds exemption threshold

M/s Nagar Palika Parishad Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Ghaziabad

CESTAT Allahabad dismissed the appeal regarding service tax levy on one-time premium for immovable property rental. Following Allahabad HC precedent, the ... Levy of service tax on the one-time premium collected for the renting of immovable property - applicability of renting of shops, specifically considering the threshold exemption limit under the relevant notifications. HELD THAT:- The issue is squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of M/s Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority, Noida [2015 (4) TMI 1231 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] wherein it was held that 'Letting of immovable property for consideration, which is determined on the basis of offers received from public at large by the assessee Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority is a service provided for consideration and not on payment of statutory fees, neither it is a statutory service performed by the assessee. It may be that the statute permits such activities of letting out of immovable property for augmenting its finances but the same cannot be termed as the service in public interest nor it is a mandatory or statutory functions of the Development Authority. Accordingly such activity of leasing do constitute a taxable service, in our opinion.' As there are no merits in the submissions made by the appellant in respect of the levy of service tax on the “one time premium” or “salami” collected by them, the value of taxable services provided during each financial year for the period in the dispute would be more than the threshold exemption limit as provided by the Notification No 4/2007-ST dated 01.03.2007 as amended from time to time. Conclusion - Both the one-time premium and the rent are subject to service tax under the renting of immovable property, and the exemption limit applies to the combined total of these amounts. There are no merits in the appeal - appeal dismissed. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe Tribunal considered two primary legal issues in this case:1. Whether the service tax is applicable on the one-time premium collected for the renting of immovable property.2. Whether the service tax is applicable on the renting of shops, specifically considering the threshold exemption limit under the relevant notifications.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS1. Service Tax on One-Time Premium CollectedRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Tribunal examined the applicability of service tax on one-time premium under the Finance Act, 1994, specifically section 65(105)(zzzz) which pertains to 'renting of immovable property.' The Tribunal referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of M/s Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority, which held that the one-time premium is a taxable service under the renting of immovable property.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the definition of 'renting of immovable property' includes leasing, which under section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act includes both premium and periodical rent. The Tribunal disagreed with the earlier decision of the Division Bench in Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority, which had distinguished between premium and rent for service tax purposes.Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal relied on the interpretation that leasing includes both premium and rent, thereby subjecting the one-time premium to service tax.Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the law as interpreted by the larger bench, which held that both premium and rent are taxable under the renting of immovable property.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The appellant argued that the one-time premium should not be considered as renting activity and relied on previous decisions that supported their view. However, the Tribunal found these arguments unpersuasive in light of the larger bench's interpretation.Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the one-time premium collected is subject to service tax under the renting of immovable property.2. Service Tax on Renting of ShopsRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Tribunal considered the threshold exemption limit under Notification No. 4/2007-ST dated 01.03.2007, which provided an exemption limit for service tax liability.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal examined whether the rent collected fell below the threshold exemption limit, which was Rs. 8 lakhs during the relevant period.Key Evidence and Findings: The appellant provided a chart indicating that the total rent collected was below the exemption limit. However, the Tribunal found that when considering the premium and rent together, the total exceeded the exemption limit.Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the exemption limit to the combined total of premium and rent, concluding that the exemption did not apply.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The appellant argued for exemption based on the threshold limit, but the Tribunal found that the combined total exceeded the limit, making the exemption inapplicable.Conclusions: The Tribunal held that the renting of shops was subject to service tax as the total amount exceeded the threshold exemption limit.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSPreserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: 'The value of 'premium' or 'salami' is exigible to service tax under 'renting of immovable property' for the period prior to 01.07.2012 under section 65(105)(zzzz) of the Finance Act and from 01.07.2012 under section 66B of the Finance Act.'Core Principles Established: The Tribunal established that both the one-time premium and the rent are subject to service tax under the renting of immovable property, and the exemption limit applies to the combined total of these amounts.Final Determinations on Each Issue: The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the service tax liability on both the one-time premium and the renting of shops, as the combined total exceeded the threshold exemption limit.