Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(CESTAT) 1597
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE
REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. 1
ST/2725/2010
Service Tax Appeal No. 2725 of 2010
M/s. Society for Innovation and Development
IISc. Campus,
Near Circle Maramma Temple,
Malleswaram,
Bangalore – 560 012.
Appellant(s)
VERSUS
The Commissioner of Service Tax
No.16/1, S.P. Complex,
Lalbagh Road,
Bangalore – 560 027.
Respondent(s)
APPEARANCE:
Shri B. G. Chidananda Urs, Advocate for the Appellant.
Shri Vikalp Jain, Superintendent (AR) for the Respondent.
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
HON'BLE MRS. R. BHAGYA DEVI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
FINAL ORDER NO. 20552 / 2026
DATE OF HEARING: 09.01.2026
DATE OF DECISION: 24.04.2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: B. G. Chidananda Urs
For the Respondents: Vikalp Jain
Collaborative research project fees facilitating infrastructure usage are not taxable as 'Renting of Immovable Property' if the core nature of the transaction is R&D sponsorship, while scientific advisory services provided to corporate clients remain taxable under 'Scientific or Technical Consultancy Services'.
Headnote:(A) Finance Act, 1994 - Section 65(90a), 65(105)(zzzz), 65(40), 67, 75 - Renting of Immovable Property Service - Event Management Services - Scientific or Technical Consultancy Services - Appellant acting as a mediator for research facilities - Licensing fees collected for collaborative research does not qualify as renting of immovable property where underlying purpose is R&D project sponsorship - Symposium facilitation for tropical diseases prevention does not fall under event management - Research project fees for scientific organizations are taxable as scientific or technical consultancy services - Extended period of limitation justifiable due to non-disclosure.
Facts of the case:
The appellant, a non-profit registered society, collaborated with a premier academic institute and corporate entities for research-oriented programmes. The Revenue department alleged non-payment of service tax regarding renting of immovable property, event management, and consultancy services, demanding substantial amounts. The appellant contested these demands, arguing that their role was merely administrative and collaborative.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal found that the amounts received under tri-partite research agreements for infrastructure usage were part of project sponsorship, not commercial renting. Further, symposiums related to health and disease eradication did not constitute event management. However, technical consultancy fees charged for research projects with various industrial partners were upheld as taxable services.
Issues: 1. Whether collaborative research and infrastructure facilitation amounts to taxable 'Renting of Immovable Property'. 2. Whether medical symposium organizing falls under 'Event Management'. 3. Whether scientific research services were correctly classified under 'Scientific or Technical Consultancy'.
Ratio Decidendi: Licence fees collected as part of a collaborative R&D project do not constitute renting of immovable property when the arrangement is essentially for research cooperation. Services aiding scientific and medical health goals do not qualify as 'Event Management' which targets entertainment or commercial promotional events. Consultancy services involving expert research for industrial partners are strictly classifiable as scientific/technical consultancy.
Result: Appeal is partially allowed and remanded for interest quantification.
PER: R. BHAGYA DEVI
This appeal is filed by the appellant M/s. Society for Innovation and Development (SID) against Order-in-Original No. 57/2010 dated 13.09.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore.
2. The appellant M/s. Society for Innovation and Development (SID) provides Scientific or Technical Consultancy Services by drawing and providing access to the intellectual and infrastructural resources of Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore. They also collect licence fees for renting of immovable properties and collaborate in performing and organising symposium, scholarship management etc. At the time of audit, the officers noticed that the appellant had not paid the service tax before the due dates and hence, interest of Rs.21,014/- in terms of Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 was to be paid. Secondly, it was also observed that the appellant had entered into a tripartite Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with companies like BIGTEC and M/s. Micro Labs along with Indian Institute of Science for collaborating R&D programmes, implementing technologies using cross disciplinary expertise and to undertake these activities, the appellant rented out their buildings with the infrastructure to the participating companies and collected licence fees for the same. Alleging that this service amounted to ‘Renting of Immovable Property Services’ in terms of Section 65(90a) and 65(105) (zzzz) of the Finance Act, 1994, Revenue demanded service tax of Rs.19,86,335/- for the period from June 2007 to March 2008. Thirdly, the officers also alleged that the appellant provided logistic support like space, infrastructure and administrative facilities to the M/s. Dorabji Tata Trust for conducting symposiums on tropical diseases and it was alleged to be ‘Event Management Services’ and accordingly, Rs. 16,31,669/- was demanded under this category for the period from April 2004 to March 2008. In addition, it was observed that the appellant was providing ‘Scientific or Technical Consultancy Services’ from April 2003 but paid service tax only from October 2004 and accordingly, for the period from 01.04.2004 to 31.03.2008, the Revenue demanded service tax of Rs.35,16,095/- under this category. Aggrieved by these demands, the appellant is in appeal before us.
3. The Learned Counsel submitted that the first issue with regard to interest payment is not being contested. Coming to all other issues the following submissions are placed on record:
3.1 With regard to ‘Renting of Immovable Property Services’, it is stated that the immovable property does not belong to the society but belongs to the Indian Institute of Science and they had entered into a tripartite agreement between Indian institute of science, the companies and the appellant themselves. It is stated that as per the Agreement, it is a long-term collaborative R&D programme for implementing technologies to discover and develop products of commercial relevance using cross disciplinary expertise and competences. The appellant only acts as a mediator facilitating the companies to conduct their research at the premises of the Indian Institute of Science and hence, any amount collected against this cannot be considered renting of immovable property.
3.2 With regard to demand on ‘Event Management Services’, it is submitted that the appellant entered into a MoU for research and tropical diseases and other emerging health disorders with a view to develop methods of diagnosis, new drugs and vaccines. Referring to the definition of ‘Event Management Service’ under Section 65(40) of the Finance Act, 1994, it is submitted that the workshops conducted for tropical diseases and emerging health disorders will not fall under the ‘Event Management Services’ & also referring to the Board Circular No. 80/10/2004-ST dated 17.09.2004, it is submitted that the services rendered by them do not fall under the ‘Event Management Services’.
3.3 Coming to Scientific or Technical Consultancy Services, it is submi
