Lease premium, reconciliation and reverse charge disputes failed where tax was already discharged and no suppression was proved.

One-time lease premium received during mall development was treated as construction-linked consideration, not recurring rent, so service tax under renting of immovable property with abatement was not sustainable. Alleged short payment based on ST-3 mismatch failed because reconciliation and a Chartered Accountant's certificate showed the tax was discharged in a subsequent period. Extra development charges did not attract a separate full-rate demand where tax had already been paid under another correct taxable head. Reverse charge demands on director remuneration, GTA services and security services also failed: director payments were treated as salary, no consignment note established GTA service, and the security-service evidence was not rebutted. In the absence of fraud or suppression, the extended period of limitation could not be invoked.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether lease premium received during the construction stage was taxable as renting of immovable property or as construction services eligible for abatement; (ii) Whether the alleged short payment based on discrepancy between ST-3 returns and books of account survived in the face of reconciliation and supporting certificate; (iii) Whether extra development charges were separately liable to service tax at full rate without abatement; (iv) Whether service tax was payable under reverse charge mechanism on director remuneration, GTA services and security services; and (v) Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked.

Issue (i): Whether lease premium received during the construction stage was taxable as renting of immovable property or as construction services eligible for abatement.

Analysis: The premium was received in the course of development of the mall and during the construction stage under sub-lease arrangements with prospective buyers. The amounts were treated as consideration for construction activity, and abatement under Notification No. 26/2012-ST was claimed. The nature of the transaction, including payment of stamp duty on registration, supported the view that the receipts were not recurring rent but one-time consideration linked to construction and transfer of constructed space.

Conclusion: The demand was not sustainable and was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the alleged short payment based on discrepancy between ST-3 returns and books of account survived in the face of reconciliation and supporting certificate.

Analysis: The assessee produced a reconciliation statement and a Chartered Accountant certificate showing that the alleged shortfall for the relevant period had already been discharged in the subsequent return period. The material on record did not establish any surviving short payment for the year in question.

Conclusion: The demand was not sustainable and was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether extra development charges were separately liable to service tax at full rate without abatement.

Analysis: The adjudication proceeded on inconsistent premises by treating the activity as renting in one part and as construction in another. The assessee had already paid tax on the EDC amounts under another taxable service code, and after the introduction of the negative list regime, payment under any correct taxable service head was sufficient discharge of liability. No separate surviving demand was justified.

Conclusion: The demand was not sustainable and was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether service tax was payable under reverse charge mechanism on director remuneration, GTA services and security services.

Analysis: The director remuneration was treated as salary for income-tax purposes, attracting the Board clarification against service tax levy. For GTA services, no consignment note was shown to establish GTA service. For security services, the invoices and tax payment to the service providers were not effectively rebutted, and the demand was not supported by adequate reasoning.

Conclusion: The reverse charge demand was not sustainable and was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issue (v): Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked.

Analysis: No fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts with intent to evade tax was established on the record.

Conclusion: Invocation of the extended period was not sustainable in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The demand, interest and penalty could not survive on any of the contested heads, and the appeal was fully allowed with consequential relief as permitted by law.

Ratio Decidendi: One-time premium received for transfer of leasehold rights during construction is not to be treated as recurring rent for taxing a transaction as renting of immovable property, and a tax demand cannot survive when the alleged liability has already been discharged under another taxable head without any established suppression or intent to evade.

---