Page 55 - GSTL_20th August 2020_Vol 39_Part 3

2020 ] STARCITY ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF S.T., MUMBAI 269
rent irrespective of whether this rent is collected periodically or in advance
in lump sum. Service Tax under Section 65(105)(zzzz) read with Section
65(90a) cannot be charged on the “premium” or ‘salami’ paid by the lessee
to the lessor for transfer of interest in the property from the lessor to the les-
see as this amount is not for continued enjoyment of the property leased.
Since the levy of Service Tax is on renting of immovable property, not on
transfer of interest in property from lessor to lessee, Service Tax would be
chargeable only on the rent whether it is charged periodically or at a time in
advance. In these appeals, in the show cause notice dated 19-3-2012 issued
by the Addl. Director, DGCEI, New Delhi, Service Tax has been demanded
only on the lease rent and not on the premium amount while in the subse-
quent show cause notice dated 17-10-2012 issued by the Commissioner of
Central Excise and Service Tax, Noida, the amount of premium has also
been included in the lease rent for the purpose of charging of Service Tax
for which no valid reasons have been given. Therefore, the Order-in-
Original dated 30-4-2013 confirming the Service Tax demand on the premi-
um amount is not correct and to this extent, the Service Tax demand would
not be sustainable.’
in Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority v. Commissioner of Central Excise
& Service Tax, Noida [2015 (38) S.T.R. 1062 (Tri. - Del.)] and which, upon appeal,
was decided thus
‘28. We may record that under show cause notice dated 22nd March, 2012
demand of Service Tax including the Education Cess was made for the pe-
riod between July, 2010 to May, 2011. So far as the second show cause no-
tice dated 17th October, 2012 is concerned, Service Tax was demanded
along with interest for the period between May, 2007 to March, 2012 on the
following amounts :
(a) one time premium amount;
(b) annual lease rent;
(c) fee charged for examination of the applications;
(d) transfer charges;
(e) rent received from the staff
(f) other misc. income as compliance fees etc.
(g) misc. income as malba charges etc.
xxxxx
35. The judgment relied upon by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner in
the case of Krishak Bharati Cooperative Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income
Tax passed in Income Tax Appeal No. 205 of 2010, decided on 12th July,
2010 is clearly distinguishable in the facts of the present case. The other
judgments referred to by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner i.e. (1) CIT
v. Panbari Tea Co. Ltd. (AIR 1965 SC 1871), (2) Smt. Shanti Sharma and Others
v. Smt. Ved Prabha and Others [(1987) 4 SCC 193], (3) R.K. Palshikar (HUF) v.
CIT [(1988) 3 SCC 594], (4) Maharaja Chintamani Saran Naty Sah Deo v. CIT
(AIR 1961 SC 732), and (5) Associated Hotels of India Ltd. v. R.N. Kapoor (1959
AIR SC 12262) do not lay down anything contrary to what has been record-
ed by us hereinabove.
36. We may not enter into the issue as to whether premium paid along
with rent fixed should form the total consideration for levy of Service Tax

GST LAW TIMES  20th August 2020  55