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

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Interim order staying the operation of an impugned order vs quashment of an impugned order

In Deific Abode LLP vs Union of India & Ors., while discussing on the issue of interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order, the Calcutta High Court observed that :- These salient principles emerge: i. As per the law laid down in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd (supra) by the Supreme Court, the effect of an interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order are considerably different from one another. While the former merely ensures that the order impugned would not be operative from the date of the passing of the order of stay, without annihilating the said impugned order from existence, the latter ensures that such quashment results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date the impugned order was passed, with the impugned order ceasing to exist in the eyes of the law. ii. Quashment of such impugned order would revive the appeal before the appellate authority and would be con...
Post a Comment
Read more

Ruling on applicability of threshold limit for withholding obligation in relation to sale of immovable property

In Vinod Soni and others (Taxpayer) v. ITO, the issue before the Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was whether any withholding obligation triggers on the joint buyers if the cost of the immoveable property is more than specified limit of INR5M but the share of each co-owner is less than that value. Income tax laws cast an obligation on the buyer to withhold tax on payment to seller of consideration for transfer of immoveable property if value of consideration exceeds INR5M. The Tribunal held that in a case of joint acquisition of an immovable property by various co-owners, the threshold limit of withholding obligation (i.e. INR5M) is applicable with reference to share of each co-owner and not with reference to consideration of entire property. Accordingly, the Tribunal deleted tax withholding demand raised on co-owners by the Tax Authority. Article referred: https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/delhitrib/%24FILE/delhitrib.pdf
Post a Comment
Read more