Ask Jurishour AI

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
tdb_templates
saswp_reviews
saswp-collections
saswp_rvs_location
tdc-review-email
web-story-font
web-story
googlesitekit_email
tds_locker
tds_email
saswp
mailpoet_page
mailpoet_email
tdcpt_tunes
tdc-review
pronamic_payment
pronamic_gateway
pronamic_pay_subscr
wpcode
HomeIndirect TaxesService Tax Demand on Citi Centre Mall Maintenance Charges Quashed: CESTAT

Service Tax Demand on Citi Centre Mall Maintenance Charges Quashed: CESTAT

Published on

🚀 Stay Connected With JurisHour

WhatsApp X Telegram

The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, has set aside a service tax demand of over ₹19 lakh along with penalties on maintenance charges collected from tenants of the popular Chennai Citi Centre Mall at Mylapore.

The bench of Ajayan T.V. (Judicial Member) and Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical  Member) have observed that  the lessee shall be responsible to pay only the actual proportionate cost of maintenance charges and lessor by agreeing and undertaking not to have any profit element for the maintenance charges except pay and park system.

The case arose from a demand raised by the Service Tax Department, alleging that the mall owner was liable to pay service tax on monthly maintenance charges recovered from tenants under the category of “management, maintenance or repair service.” The Department had issued a Statement of Demand for the period February 2012 to June 2012, claiming non-payment of tax. The adjudicating authority had earlier confirmed the demand of ₹19,16,098 along with interest and penalties, a decision that was upheld by the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals).

Appearing for the appellant, counsel Ms. N. Asmitha argued that under the lease agreements, tenants were contractually bound to bear the actual cost of maintenance, and the mall management merely recovered these expenses on a reimbursement basis without any profit element. She pointed to Clause 8(c) of the lease deed, which specifically stated that the lessees would only pay proportionate actual costs, with any excess to be adjusted in subsequent years.

It was also highlighted that in earlier appeals involving the same issue, the Tribunal had ruled in favour of the appellant. Notably, Final Orders No. 41325-41327/2018 dated April 25, 2018, had already settled the matter, holding that such reimbursements could not be treated as taxable services.

The Bench noted that the amounts collected were purely reimbursements for actual expenses. There was no profit element involved in the recovery of maintenance charges. The principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Intercontinental Consultants Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. — that reimbursements cannot be subjected to service tax — was applicable.

The Tribunal concluded that the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) could not be sustained, and it quashed the service tax demand, interest, and penalties.

Case Details

Case Title: M/s. Chennai Citi Centre Holdings Pvt Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise

Case No.: Service Tax Appeal No. 40597 of 2016

Date: 26.08.2025

Counsel For  Appellant: N. Asmitha, Advocate

Counsel For Respondent: N. Satyanarayana, Authorised Representative

Read More: Aryan Khan Drug Case: CAT Stays Departmental Inquiry Against IRS Sameer Wankhede 

Mariya Paliwala
Mariya Paliwalahttps://www.jurishour.in/
Mariya is the Senior Editor at Juris Hour. She has 7+ 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 her career as a freelance tax reporter in the leading online legal news companies.

Latest articles

GST Registration Cancellation Quashed Over Missing Verification Report And Unexplained Retrospective Effect: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has set aside an order cancelling a firm’s GST registration...

Internal Departmental Delays Can’t Extend GST Refund Appeal Deadline: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has dismissed the department’s appeal in a dispute involving recovery...

GST Officer Blocks Rs. 1.61 Crore ITC Beyond His Powers; Allahabad High Court Orders Review Of Similar Cases

The Allahabad High Court has directed the Commissioner, State Tax, to examine whether officers...

GST Recovery Put on Hold as Allahabad HC Flags Substantial Question of Law Over Portal Upload, Communication of Orders

The Allahabad High Court has taken serious note of concerns relating to the chronology...

More like this

GST Registration Cancellation Quashed Over Missing Verification Report And Unexplained Retrospective Effect: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has set aside an order cancelling a firm’s GST registration...

Internal Departmental Delays Can’t Extend GST Refund Appeal Deadline: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has dismissed the department’s appeal in a dispute involving recovery...

GST Officer Blocks Rs. 1.61 Crore ITC Beyond His Powers; Allahabad High Court Orders Review Of Similar Cases

The Allahabad High Court has directed the Commissioner, State Tax, to examine whether officers...