G. Raghuram, President - Heard Shri J.K. Mittal, ld. Counsel for the appellant/assessee and Shri Amresh Jain, ld. A.R. for the respondent-Revenue. This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the Order-in-Original No.59/Commissioner/Noida/2012-13 dated 26.2.2013. By this order, the adjudicating authority confirmed service tax demand of Rs.250,62,21,312/- besides interest and penalties including penalty in an amount equivalent to the service tax demand assessed, under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 (the Act).

2. Proceedings were initiated by the show-cause notice dated 19.10.2012. According to this notice, the appellant/assessee obtained registration on 27.5.2008 for providing the taxable service "renting of immovable property". On receipt of information that the assessee was collecting lease rents under various heads like lease rent (industrial), lease rent (commercial), rent (commercial), rent (industrial), other rents etc. on which service tax is remittable as per provisions of the Act, Revenue initiated the proceedings. Several notices were issued followed by summons as well. Para 2 of the show-cause notice sets out in great detail the wholly uncooperative attitude of the assessee to the several notices issued by Revenue and the obstructionist strategies adopted by the assessee to the process of assessment. The assessee appears to have considered itself above and beyond the reach of assessment proceedings and adopted a condescending posture, in failing to respond to several notices issued. At one stage Revenue had to file a complaint in the Court of Special CJM, Meerut and had obtained an order from that Court, for appearance of the assessee's representative, in response to summons issued, which were not honoured. Eventually, on the basis of partial information furnished by the assessee including balance sheet and income and expenditure account for 2007-08 and 2008-09 and provisional income statements for 2010-11 and 2011-12, Revenue inferred that the assessee had provided the taxable service of "renting of immovable property". Revenue further assumed that several receipts by the assessee amounted to the gross consideration received for the specified taxable service and brought the entire component tax. The receipts (which were brought to tax) were set out in Annexure 'A' to the show-cause notice. Among the receipts by the assessee which were considered to comprise the gross consideration received for the taxable services are:

(a) Penalty (commercial);

(b) Penalty (industrial);

(c) Forfeiture (commercial)

(d) Forfeiture (industrial);

(e) Building plan fee;

(f) Hoarding/advertisement charges;

(g) Restoration charges;

(h) Park booking charges;

(i) Interest on lease rent; and

(j) Interest from allottees/lessee

Further lease rent on industrial and commercial properties and rents on commercial and industrial properties, besides other rents as well as processing fee for commercial/industrial purposes and time extension charges on industrial and commercial purpose; transfer charges for industrial and commercial leases, was also considered towards the gross consideration received, by Revenue. The period involved was April, 2007 to March, 2012.

3. Responding to the show-cause notice the assessee inter alia contended that (a) leasing of vacant land was not comprehended within the ambit of the taxable "renting of immovable property" service prior to 1.7.2010, since only by the Finance Act, 2010 and with effect from 1.7.2010 was clause (v) incorporated in Explanation (1) to clause (zzzz) of Section 65(105); that prior to 1.7.2010 renting of a vacant land was outside the purview of the taxable service; that since the assessee as a statutory Development Authority, created by the provisions of the U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 had entered into long-term leases with third parties whereunder vacant lands were leased to such third parties inter alia for business or commercial purposes on long-term leases (of 99 years duration),