Back
Renting Vacant Land Before Not Service Taxable; Extended Period Not Invokable: CESTAT
In a significant ruling, the has held that is not subject to service tax for the period prior to . The tribunal also ruled that the cannot be invoked against a government authority without of an .
Case Background
The dispute involved the , and , a state government-owned company established to develop industrial growth centres. MPAKVNL provides land on long-term lease to industries and collects yearly lease rent. The department treated this as a taxable service of renting immovable property and issued four show cause notices demanding over ₹6.40 crore in service tax, interest, and penalties for the period from to .
The principal commissioner initially dropped part of the demand, leading to the department’s appeal before CESTAT.
The Core Legal Question
The main issue was whether renting vacant land was taxable before . Prior to that date, the definition of “renting of immovable property” under the specifically excluded vacant land. The provision was amended from to bring vacant land within the taxable service when it is rented on lease or licence for construction of a building or temporary structure for business or commerce.
MPAKVNL argued that it did not obtain service tax registration because of this clear exclusion. The department, however, contended that the activity was taxable even before the amendment.
Arguments Presented
The department’s authorised representative argued that MPAKVNL earned profits from leasing land and could not claim exemption as a government authority. He also submitted that the respondent had failed to register and disclose its service income, which constituted justifying invocation of the . Reliance was placed on judgments in and to argue that amounts to .
Defending the company, counsel for MPAKVNL stated that renting vacant land was expressly excluded from the tax net before , and the company had a that it was not liable. Relying on , he submitted that no service tax could be demanded for the period before the amendment.
Legal Analysis and Observations
The bench, comprising Officiating President Dr. Rachna Gupta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao, carefully examined the statutory provisions. It observed that before , defined “renting of immovable property” but specifically excluded vacant land. Only with effect from was the scope expanded to cover renting of immovable property, including vacant land, for use in business or commerce.
“The immovable property including the vacant land is leviable to service tax with effect from . Prior thereto was not taxable,” the tribunal noted.
On the issue of one-time received under the lease, the tribunal rejected the respondent’s contention that such amounts were not taxable. Relying on the Larger Bench decision in , it held that premium is also and is taxable.
No Grounds for Extended Limitation
The most critical aspect was the invocation of the . The tribunal applied the principle laid down by the in and , which require or of information to extend the limitation period. The court emphasised that a government authority cannot be presumed to have malafide without positive evidence.
“The respondent had no intent to evade the tax,” the tribunal stated, noting that the department had not produced any evidence of or deliberate non-compliance. It further cited to hold that penalties should not be imposed for flowing from a .
Final Decision
CESTAT upheld the order of the principal commissioner, confirming that the show cause notices for the period from to September 30, 2010 were . The tribunal dismissed the department’s appeal and ruled that the demand for that period had been correctly dropped.
The decision clarifies that renting vacant land is outside the service tax net before , and that the extended limitation period requires proven intent to evade, especially when the taxpayer is a government authority acting under a .
The order was pronounced on .
