Page 56 - GSTL_20th August 2020_Vol 39_Part 3

270 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 39
or not as no appeal has been filed by the Department against the order of
the Tribunal. But at the same time if the Tribunal has held that only rent
charged be considered for computation of Service Tax, it will not mean that
the Tribunal has held that a part of the same transaction was taxable and
part of it as not taxable. In our opinion, the Tribunal has rightly held that
the lease of open land for use as commercial/business purpose, as an taxa-
ble event, but what amount is to be taken into consideration for computa-
tion of Service Tax has been confined to the periodical rent only. The plea
raised to the contrary by the Learned Counsel for the appellant has there-
fore, to be rejected.’
by Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in Greater Noida Industrial Development Au-
thority v. Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise [2015 (40) S.T.R. 95 (All.)] on ap-
peal of assessee while the appeal of Revenue, disposed of by Hon’ble High Court
of Allahabad, in Commissioner of Service Tax, Noida v. Greater Noida Development
Authority [2015 (40) S.T.R. 46 (All.)], was limited to scope afforded by expansion
of Section 65(105)(zzzz) in clause (v) of the Explanation.
4. Learned Author Representative places reliance on the decision of the
Tribunal in re Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority which has held that
consideration on lease, of all types, is liable to tax and that the premium in the
present instance is nothing but consideration. Further reliance is placed by him
on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Tripura in Hobbs Brewers India Pvt.
Ltd. v. Union of India [2016 (45) S.T.R. 60 (Tripura)] and in RIICO Ltd. v. Commis-
sioner of Central Excise, Jaipur-I [2018 (10) G.S.T.L. 92 (Tri. - Del.)] wherein it has
been held that
’15. Admittedly, substantial part of the demand against the appellant in
various proceedings, relate to their Service Tax liability on lump sum pre-
mium amount, received by them from the allottees on allotment of land on
long term basis. In view of the introduction of new Section 104 in the Fi-
nance Act, 1994 the appellant’s liability on such consideration no longer ex-
ists. The one-time payment received for grant of long term lease of 30 years
or more of industrial plot, is not liable to Service Tax for all the periods cov-
ered in the present proceedings. However, we hold that the appellants are
liable to pay Service Tax in respect of such one-time amounts received in
respect of lease granted for less than 30 years. We do not find any justifica-
tion to consider the one-time payment on a different footing when com-
pared to the regular lease rent, received in a periodical manner. We note
that on identical set of facts, with reference to lease granted by Tripura In-
dustrial Development Corporation, the Hon’ble High Court of Tripura in
the case of Hobbs Brewers India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India reported in [2016
(45) S.T.R. 60 (Tripura)] held as below :
“4. We are not at all inclined to even issue notice in the writ petition.
A perusal of Section 65(90a) and Section 65(105)(zzzz) of the Finance
Act, 1994 as quoted in the letter dated 23-11-2015 clearly shows that
“Renting of Immovable Property Service” includes renting, letting,
leasing, licensing or other similar arrangements amounts to providing
service and under Section 65(105)(zzzz) it is a taxable service.
5. It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that what is taxable is the
rent and not premium. This argument is without any basis whatsoev-
er. What is taxable is the consideration for the transfer. Even if pre-
mium is charged that is like charging of one time rent and then rebate
GST LAW TIMES  20th August 2020  56