TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 111
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appellant is not eligible for the benefit of Notification No.25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 and reduces the penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 to the extent of 50% of the service tax amount upheld. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant is in appeal before us. 3. The Learned Counsel has submitted that they are entitled for the benefit of Notification No.25/2012 dated 20.06.2012. Referring to clause 4 of the above Notification and referring to the definition of charitable activities which includes religion, he submits that the benefit of Notification needs to be extended to the appellant. 4. The learned Authorised Representative reiterating the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) submits that they are not eligible for the benefit of the said Notification as is held by the Commissioner (Appeals). He also submits that in a similar set of facts, this Tribunal vide Final Order No.20262 to 20264/2026 dated 04.03.2026 held that post 01.07.2012 they are liable to pay service tax, hence, the impugned order needs to be sustained. 5. Heard both sides. To examine whether the appellant is eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 5/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 the same i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n any other financial year subject to the condition that total value of such activities had not exceeded twenty five lakhs rupees during the preceding financial year; 5. Services by a person by way of - (a) renting of precincts of a religious place meant for general public; or (b) conduct of any religious ceremony; 5.1 In the present case the undisputed facts are the appellant is a Jacobite Syrian Church which is a religious body and is registered under the Charitable and Religious Trust Act and under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is also not in dispute that within the premises of the Church various shopping complexes owned by the appellant were rented-out to tenants for business based on the consideration. The only issue to be decided is whether the rent received by the appellant is liable to service tax since the premises herein is used for commercial purposes. There is no dispute that renting of immovable property is liable to service tax under Section 65(90a) of the Finance Act, 1994 as long as it is used for business or commerce. In the instant case since shops have been rented-out, the same is liable to service tax. 5.2 The claim....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enting of the said premises covered under Clause 5(a) of the exemption Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012, which reads as follows:- 5. Services by way of - (a) renting of precincts of a religious place meant for general public; or (b) conduct of any religious ceremony; It is their claim that their activity of renting of the shops in the said premises for commercial purposes fall under sub-clause (a) i.e. "renting of precincts of a religious place meant for general public". 9. We find that the Tribunal in the case of Diocese of Tanjore Society (supra) interpreting various provisions relating to Societies Registration Act, 1860, meaning and scope of religious body etc. pertaining to both the periods, observed that the appellant are liable to pay service tax only w.e.f. 01.07.2012 and not before that. The Tribunal analysing the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the definition of religious body held as follows:- 5.3 The definition of a 'religious body' has to be broader than that of a 'religious denomination'. A religious denomination is a subgroup within a religion. Religious body can b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1860 was negatived by the Allahabad High Court in Anjuman Islamia of Muttra v. Nasiruddin. It was contended in that case that the registration of a society called "Anjuman Islamia" under Act 21 of 1860 was not permissible as the society was formed for "religious purposes only" and not for charitable purposes. The Allahabad High Court rejected the said contention and held that a society for religious purposes would ordinarily be a society for charitable purposes. A similar question arose before the Madras High Court in Khaji Muhammad Hussain Sahib v. Majiday Mahmood Jamait Managing Committee. A Division Bench consisting of Wadworth. and Venkataramana Rao, JJ. held that Act 21 of 1860 was passed in 1860 when according to English Law, a gift for the advancement of religion or promotion of religious worship was treated as a charitable purpose and, therefore, a society formed for such a purpose would be a charitable society under Act 21 of 1860. The only condition was that it should be for the benefit of the public. No doubt, in some statutes enacted subsequent to Act 21 of 1860, the Legislature used the words "charitable" and "religious" but the definition of these words was expressly ....