TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (11) TMI 311
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 30.09.2012 against them. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC in short) is not paying service tax on the service charges collected from the plot owners situated in various MIDC areas. MIDC has been constituted by the Government of Maharashtra to develop industrial areas in the State of Maharashtra by acquiring land from the land owners and plotting it into suitable industrial plots. Thereafter, these plots are sold/leased out under a lease agreement to individuals/companies desirous of setting up industries. As per the lease agreement, certain infrastructural facilities like roads, water, drainage, street light, etc. are provided by MIDC to plot owners. The MIDC collect c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ultant relies on the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramtanu Co-op. Hsg. Society Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra - AIR 1970 SC 1771 to stress his contention that the appellant is an agent of Government of Maharashtra. 4.1 He further submits that pursuant to MID Act, MID Rules and the lease deed, the appellant collects compulsory levy/service charges for provision of amenities such as road, street lights, plantation etc. from the lessees. As the appellant is performing the statutory/sovereign function therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay service tax. To support this contention he relies on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation v. Hari Om....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... therefore, their activity is squarely covered under Management and Maintenance and Repair service as the appellant is engaged in the activity of maintenance or management of immovable property. 5. He further submits that the appellant is not executing any sovereign function as for the income and liabilities of the appellant, the Maharashtra Government is not responsible. Therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant is performing sovereign function and prays that the impugned orders are to be upheld. 6. Considered the submissions made by both sides. 7. It is not in dispute that the appellant is a statutory body constituted by the Government of Maharashtra under MID Act. Section 17 of the MID Act and Rule 29 of MID Rules, 1962, w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... amenities provided in an industrial estate:- (a) where the premises consist of land with or without building at a rate not exceeding 25 paise, per square meter of the land; and (b) where the premises consist of a part of a building at the rate not exceeding 50 paise per square meter of the carpet area of such part of the building. Section 2(a) of MID Act defines amenity as: "(a) "amenity" includes road, supply of water or electricity, street lighting, drainage, sewerage, conservancy and such other convenience as the State Government ma....