TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 681
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fter referred to as the 'Appellants') assailing the Order-in-Appeal No. 180/2015(STA-II) dated 05.08.2015 passed by Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals-II), Chennai. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in providing "Banking and Financial Services". They are receiving deposits by issuing bonds to the general public and lend deposits received to Tamil Nadu Electricity Board as long-term loans, short term loans and also engaged in lending finance to hire purchase and receive interest for these loans. 3. On scrutinizing the returns filed by the appellants a Show Cause Notice No. 50/2010 dated 29.09.2010 for the period April 2009 to March 2010 was issued against the appellants for non-inclusion of amenity charges ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in dispute is nothing but the reimbursement of 1/4th of the total office maintenance charge for every month which was actually incurred by the appellants on behalf of the service receiver and the reimbursements are actually not towards the service rendered rather they are only expenditure incurred on behalf of the service receiver. ii. That the service provider incurs these expenditures in the interest of quicker service. iii. That the expenditure is incurred on behalf of client and not directly relatable to service rendered. iv. Therefore, these expenditures are not liable to be included in the gross amount as per Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994 v. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Delhi Hig....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ich was actually incurred by them. These payments are made on behalf of the receiver towards the maintenance charges incurred in the premises and they have to be treated as a reimbursement charges and the charges are not actually towards any services rendered and as such this amount is not to be included in their gross value as per Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994. 13. It is not disputed that the Appellant has discharged service tax on the rent amount received under Renting of Immovable Property Service. Maintenance / amenity charges which are reimbursed are not to be included in the value in terms of provisions of Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994 as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of UOI vs. Intercontinental Consultants....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ble service is to be determined. However, Section 67(4) is expressly made subject to the provisions of sub- section (1). Mandate of sub-section (1) of Section 67 is manifest, as noted above, viz., the service tax is to be paid only on the services actually provided by the service provider. 26) It is trite that rules cannot go beyond the statute. In Babaji Kondaji Garad, this rule was enunciated in the following manner: "Now if there is any conflict between a statute and the subordinate legislation, it does not require elaborate reasoning to firmly state that the statute prevails over subordinate legislation and the bye- law, if not in conformity with the statute in order to give effect to the statutory provision the Rule o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tory provision, nor could it be argued so, as we find that this is a substantive change brought about with the amendment to Section 67 and, therefore, has to be prospective in nature. On this aspect of the matter, we may usefully refer to the Constitution Bench judgment in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-I, New Delhi v. Vatika Township Private Limited8 wherein it was observed as under: "27. A legislation, be it a statutory Act or a statutory rule or a statutory notification, may physically consists of words printed on papers. However, conceptually it is a great deal more than an ordinary prose. There is a special peculiarity in the mode of verbal communication by a legislation. A legislation is not just a series of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by which the conduct of mankind is to be regulated when introduced for the first time to deal with future acts ought not to change the character of past transactions carried on upon the faith of the then existing law. 29. The obvious basis of the principle against retrospectivity is the principle of "fairness", which must be the basis of every legal rule as was observed in L'Office Cherifien des Phosphates v. Yamashita-Shinnihon Steamship Co. Ltd. Thus, legislations which modified accrued rights or which 8 (2015) 1 SCC 1 impose obligations or impose new duties or attach a new disability have to be treated as prospective unless the legislative intent is clearly to give the enactment a retrospective effect; unless the legislatio....