SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. Pardiwala, K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.
The State of Karnataka & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
Taghar Vasudeva Ambrish & Anr. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 7846 of 2023 With Civil Appeal No. 7847 of 2023
Decided On : 04-12-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. key facts regarding the case proceedings. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. definition and interpretation of 'residential dwelling'. (Para 12 , 13 , 41 , 42 , 44) |
| 3. arguments by revenue regarding exemption eligibility. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 30 , 31) |
| 4. court’s rationale on interpretation of exemption. (Para 52 , 62 , 63) |
| 5. final determination on exemption applicability. (Para 68 , 69) |
JUDGMENT :
J.B. PARDIWALA, J.
1. Since the issues raised in both the captioned appeals are the same and the challenge is also to the self-same judgment and order passed by the High Court of Karnataka, those were taken up for hearing analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.
2. These appeals arise from the judgment and order passed by the High Cout of Karnataka dated 07.02.2022 in Writ Petition No. 14891 of 2020 by which the writ petition filed by respondent No. 1 herein (original petitioner) was allowed thereby setting aside the order dated 31.08.2020 passed by the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling, Karnataka (for short, “the AAAR”). The AAAR in its ruling had declared while affirming the ruling of the Authority for Advance Ruling, Karnataka (for short, “the AAR”) that the services provided by the respondent No. 1 herein (original petitioner) in the form of leasing of residential premises as hostel to students and working professionals does not fall within the ambit of Entry 13 of the Notification No. 9/2017- Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017. In other words, the respondent No. 1 herein would not be entitled to the exemption on services viz. renting of residential dwelling for use as a residence under Entry 13 of the Notification No. 9/2017 dated 28.06.2017.
FACTUAL MATRIX
3. The facts giving rise to these appeals may be summarised as under.
4. The respondent No. 1 before us is the co-owner of a residential property situated in Bangalore. The property consists of 42 rooms. It is a four storied building with terrace and common area. On 21.06.2019 the respondent No. 1 along with other the co-owners executed a lease deed in favour of M/s DTwelve Spaces Private Limited (fort short, “the lessee”). The lessee in turn leased out the residential property as hostel to provide long term accommodation to students and working professionals with the duration of stay ranging from 3 months to 12 months.
5. The Central Government by way of Notification No.9/2017- Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 (hereinafter referred to as “the Exemption Notification”) has granted exemption from payment of goods and services tax in respect of services which includes renting services which are provided with respect to residential dwelling for use as residence.
6. The respondent No. 1 herein (original petitioner) with a view to seek clarification with regard to his eligibility to claim exemption on the rent received by him from the lessee by letting the property preferred an Advance Ruling application in the prescribed Form under Section 97 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short, “the Act”) before the AAR. The AAR vide its ruling dated 23.03.2020 inter alia held that the services viz. renting of residential dwelling for use as a residence do not fall under Entry 13 of the Exemption Notification. It held that the lessee being a company is not itself using the premises in question. In such circumstances, it was held by the AAR that the respondent No. 1 herein has to charge goods and services tax (for short, ‘GST’) while issuing invoices to the lessee provided it was registered under the Act. Accordingly, it was held that the benefit of Exemption Notification is not available to the respondent No.1 herein (original petitioner).
7. The respondent No. 1 herein (original petitioner) being dissatisfied with the ruling of the AAR filed an appeal under Section 100 of the Act before the AAAR. The AAAR vide order dated 31.08.2020 inter alia while affirming the AAR’s ruling held that the property rented out by the respo
Kishore Chandra Singh Deo v. Babu Ganesh Prasad Bhagat
Mohinder Singh v. State of Haryana
Commissioner of Central excise, Delhi v. Allied Air- Conditioning Corpn.
Government of Kerala v. Mother Superior Adoration Convent reported in (2021) 5 SCC 602 [Para 22]
V.L. Kashyap v. R.P. Puri reported in 12 (1976) DLT 369 [Para 41]
Uratemp Ventures Limited v. Collins reported in (2001) 3 WLR 806 [Para 42]
Union of India v. Wood Papers Limited
Collector of Central Excise v. Parle Exports (P) Ltd. reported in (1989) 1 SCC 345 [Para 57]
Shailesh Dhairyavan v. Mohan Balkrihna Lulla reported in (2016) 3 SCC 619) [Para 60]
AI
The court affirmed that leasing of premises as a hostel for students constitutes a residential dwelling under GST law, qualifying for tax exemption regardless of the lessee's use.
Point of Law : Benefit of exemption notification cannot be denied to the petitioner on the ground that the lessee is not using the premises.
The court held that leasing residential premises for student accommodation qualifies for GST exemption, underpinning strict interpretation of exemption notifications in favor of the taxpayer.
Hostel services provided for residential purposes qualify for GST exemption under relevant notifications, emphasizing the interpretation of exemption notifications should favor the taxpayer.
The interpretation of 'house', 'shop', 'annual income', and 'reasonable requirement' under the Houses and Shops Rent Control Act, and the application of these provisions in determining the rights of ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.