Maintenance Reimbursements Not Part of Renting Service | CESTAT

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

Maintenance Charges Renting Service CESTAT
Case Details: Chennai Citi Centre Holdings Pvt Ltd. vs. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai (2025) 34 Centax 132 (Tri.-Mad) 

Judiciary and Counsel Details

  • S/SHRI Vasa Seshagiri Rao, Member (T) & Ajayan T.V., Member (J)
  •  Shri Ms. N. Asmitha, Adv
  • Shri N. Satyanarayana, Authorised Representative

Facts of the Case

The appellant, engaged in leasing and renting out space in malls, had incurred monthly maintenance and repair charges for the upkeep of the premises and recovered the same from its tenants/lessees. The Department of Revenue classified such reimbursements under the ‘Renting of Immovable Property’ service and demanded service tax thereon for the relevant period. The appellant contended that these charges were not part of rent, but independent reimbursements of expenses incurred for common area maintenance and repairs, and hence could not be subsumed within the taxable service of Renting of Immovable Property’. Reliance was placed upon the Coordinate Bench ruling in the appellant’s own case [Final Order No. 41325-41327/2018, dated 25-04-2018 by CESTAT], where it had been held that such reimbursements are not taxable under this category. The matter was accordingly placed before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). 

CESTAT Held

The CESTAT held that maintenance and repair charges collected by the appellant from tenants/lessees could not be subjected to service tax under Renting of Immovable Property service as defined under Sections 65(90a) and 65(105)(zzzz) of the Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal observed that these amounts were strictly reimbursements of expenses incurred by the lessor for common facilities and did not constitute consideration for renting. Applying the ratio of its earlier decision in the appellant’s own case, it concluded that such collections fell outside the scope of the taxable service. Accordingly, the demand was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. 

List of Cases Cited 

  • Chennai Citi Centre Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner – Final Order No.41325-41327/2018, dated 25-4-2018 by CESTAT, Chennai — Followed [Paras 2, 5]

Leave Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Stories
FA 2010 Service Tax Levy on Construction Upheld | HC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

January 31, 2026

Tobacco Products Assessable Under Section 4, Not 4A | CESTAT

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

January 28, 2026

Clandestine Removal Demand Set Aside For Lack Of Proof | CESTAT

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

January 27, 2026

No Review on Interest/Penalty If Duty Set Aside | HC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

January 24, 2026

Duty Demand Set Aside; Review Of Interest Penalty Invalid | HC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

January 23, 2026

Booking Speakers Via Agents Not Event Management | SC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

January 22, 2026

RCM Service Tax Refund Allowed Despite Registration Status | CESTAT

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

January 21, 2026

One-Day Delayed Payment Due To Tech Glitch Accepted | HC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

January 20, 2026

Chocolate-Coated Wafers Eligible For Concessional Duty | SC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

January 19, 2026

Adjudication Invalid After SVLDRS Acceptance | HC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

January 17, 2026