Value Of “Premium” Or “Salami” Is Exigible To Service Tax Under “Renting Of Immovable Property”: CESTAT

Date:

The Delhi Bench Of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that value of “premium” or “salami” is exigible to service tax under “renting of immovable property” for the period prior to 01.07.2012 and under section 65(105)(zzzz) of the Finance Act and from 01.07.2012 under section 66B of the Finance Act.”

.The bench of Justice Dilip Gupta (President), Binu Tamta (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) has observed that “Renting of immovable property” is a “declared service” under section 66E of the Finance Act. Once “renting of immovable property” is a declared service and so taxable under section 66B of the Finance Act, it cannot be contended by the appellant that it will also be included in those services which are excluded under section 65B (44) of the Finance Act, for it can never be the intention of the legislature to include a “service” as exigible to service tax and at the same time also exclude that “service” from taxability.

A Division Bench of the Principal Bench of the Tribunal, while hearing Service Tax Appeal filed by Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Ltd, noticed that conflicting views had been expressed by Division Benches of the Tribunal, therefore, referred the following issue to be resolved by a Larger Bench of the Tribunal.

The issue raised was whether „premium‟ or „salami‟ can be subjected to levy of service tax under “renting of immovable property‟ defined under section 65(90a) of the Finance Act.

The issue that arises for consideration is regarding the taxability of the value of “premium” or “salami” for the period prior to 01.07.2012 and w.e.f. 01.07.2012 under “renting of immovable property‟. 

Section 65(90a) of the Finance Act, 1994 defines “renting of immovable property” prior to 01.07.2012 and this service was made taxable under section 65(105)(zzzz) of the Finance Act. 

Section 65B (44) of the Finance Act defines “service” w.e.f. 01.07.2012 to mean any activity carried out by a person for another for consideration, and includes a „declared service‟. “Renting of immovable property” constitutes a „declared service‟ under section 66E (a) of the Finance Act.

The distinction between “premium” and “rent” was pointed out by the Judicial Committee in Raja Bahadur Kamakshya Narain Singh, of Ramgarh vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bihar and Orissa. It was stated that the Salami has been, rightly, in their Lordships‟ opinion, treated as a capital receipt. It is a single payment made for the acquisition of the right of the lessees to enjoy the benefits granted to them by the lease. The general right may properly be regarded as a capital asset, and the money paid to purchase it may properly be held to be a payment on capital account. But the royalties are on a different footing.

The tribunal held that once “renting of immovable property” is a declared service and so taxable under section 66B of the Finance Act, it cannot be contended by the appellant that it will also be included in those services which are excluded under section 65B (44) of the Finance Act, for it can never be the intention of the legislature to include a “service” as exigible to service tax and at the same time also exclude that “service” from taxability. 

The larger bench has placed two appeals before the respective Division Benches of the Tribunal for deciding them on merits.

Read More: Dept. Action In Demanding Alleged Wrongly Availed Credit By Invoking Extended Period Of Limitation Is Not Justified: CESTAT

Case Details

Case Title: Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Ltd Versus The Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax Commissionerate

Case No.: Service Tax Appeal No. 50553 of 2017

Date: 27.01.2025

Counsel For Appellant: Shriram Shreedharan and Shri Kunal Agarwal

Counsel For Respondent: Rajpal Sharma and Shri Shambhoo Nath

Mariya Paliwala
Mariya Paliwalahttps://jurishour.in/
Mariya is the Senior Editor at JurisHour. She has 5+ years of experience on covering tax litigation stories from the Supreme Court, High Courts and various tribunals including CESTAT, ITAT, NCLAT, NCLT, etc. Mariya graduated from MLSU Law College, Udaipur (Raj.) with B.A.LL.B. and also holds an LL.M. She started as a freelance tax reporter in the leading online legal news companies like LiveLaw & Taxscan.

Share post:

Popular

More like this
Related

CBIC Clarifies On GST Rates & Classification Of Pepper, Raisins, Popcorn, AAC Blocks

The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC)...

CBIC Operations Halted for Four Days Due to Network Failure, No Restoration Timeline Yet

The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC)...

Mumbai Airport Gold Smuggling Bust: 14 Kenyans Among 18 Caught with ₹9 Crore Gold & Diamonds

In a massive crackdown, Mumbai Customs intercepted 18 passengers,...