Skip to main content

Mumbai housing societies spared service tax

Housing societies do not have to pay service tax on maintenance charges collected from their members, a tax tribunal has ruled.

This will reduce the maintenance outgo of residents of nearly a lakh housing societies in Mumbai and Thane, particularly the upscale ones where the charges can go over Rs 1 lakh every month.

The recent decision by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) came in a case involving Tahnee Heights, a residential housing society on Nepean Sea Road, and Mittal Tower at Nariman Point that houses several offices.

The decision means a flat-owner or owner of a commercial premise in a housing society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act will have to pay much less. The society will not be required to impose a service tax charge (currently 12.36%) against maintenance charges collected from its members.

Typically in any housing society in Mumbai, the resident welfare association (RWA) formed from among members of the society caters to the administrative needs of the society. Maintenance charges are collected for purposes like water charges, electricity for common areas (lifts, stairways, lobbies), security, lift maintenance or repairs, and maintenance of common areas. Most of these charges that are collected are in the nature of reimbursement.

In some cases, the RWA enters into contracts with external service providers, say for regular lift maintenance or for providing service guards. These agencies charge service tax on their fees, which is paid by the RWA.

However, service tax authorities insisted housing societies pay up on the charges collected from its members. In tony areas or in luxury housing societies with a club house, gym or swimming pool, monthly maintenance charges can be steep, even running to more than Rs 1 lakh per flat. The service tax authorities contended the RWAs are providing taxable "club or association services".

In the case, Tahnee Heights, which collected charges for maintenance, repairs and beautification, and Mittal Tower that raised expenses from its members towards water and security charges and repairs, paid service tax on the department's "persuasion". Later they filed refund claims, which were rejected. Consequently appeals were filed with the CESTAT.

 Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Mumbai-housing-societies-spared-service-tax/articleshow/45876822.cms

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t
Post a Comment
Read more

Vanishing promoters and languishing shareholders

Over Rs 60,000 crore of shareholders’ wealth is stuck in 1,450 companies suspended by the stock exchanges. More importantly, near 100 per cent pledging of promoter holding appears to be common in many of these companies. This, almost rules out any chance of the companies bouncing back. The suspension is for non-compliance of the listing norms. Vanishing Companies - Definition As per the definition stipulated by SEBI, any listed company, which raised moneythrough initial public offer and, thereafter, stopped operations, did not file returnseither with the RoC or SEBI and did not exist on the registered premises wastermed as vanishing.There are provisions under Companies Act under which companies are termedvanishing companies on satisfying certain conditions. it is provided a companywould be deemed to be a vanishing company, if it satisfies all the conditions given below : a) Failed to file returns with Registrar of Companies (ROC) for a period of two years; b) Failed to fil
3 comments
Read more