Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2022 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (4) TMI 705 - AT - Service TaxLevy of service tax - interest free deposit amount collected by the Appellant from the demat account holders under the Scheme - appellant has not collected AMC charges - HELD THAT:- Supreme Court in COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX ETC. VERSUS M/S. BHAYANA BUILDERS (P) LTD. ETC. [2018 (2) TMI 1325 - SUPREME COURT], while deciding the appeal filed by the Department against the decision of the Tribunal, also explained the scope of Section 67 of the Act. The Supreme Court observed that any amount charged which has no nexus with the taxable service and is not a consideration for the service provided does not become part of the value which is taxable under Section 67 - Supreme Court in UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. VERSUS M/S. INTERCONTINENTAL CONSULTANTS AND TECHNOCRATS PVT. LTD. [2018 (3) TMI 357 - SUPREME COURT] and it was observed that since service tax is with reference to the value of service, as a necessary corollary, it is the value of the services which are actually rendered, the value whereof is to be ascertained for the purpose of calculating the service tax payable thereupon. In the case of MURLI REALTORS PVT. LTD., MAGRPATTA TOWNSHIP DEVELOPERS & CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD., JAIN CONSTRUCTION, SAI CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD., INDIA LAND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD., RVS HOSPITALITY & DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD., VANSUM INDUSTRIES AND THE MANJRI STUD FARM PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE PUNE-II [2014 (9) TMI 461 - CESTAT MUMBAI], a Division Bench of the Mumbai Tribunal made the observations with regard to the security deposit towards the renting of immovable property, holding that In the absence of a provision in law providing for a notional addition to the value/price charged, the question of adding notional interest on the security deposit as a consideration received for the services rendered cannot be sustained. In view of the facts that department could not bring on record any clinching evidence that the deposit has influenced the service charges, the demand is not sustainable. The impugned orders are set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|