Lessor liable for Service Tax on extra lease rent for vacant land | CESTAT

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

Service Tax lessor liability additional lease amount vacant land lessee payments

 

Case Details: Shree Vijayalakshmi Charitable Trust Versus Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Coimbatore (2025) 33 Centax 86 (Tri.-Mad) 

Judiciary and Counsel Details

  • S/Shri M. Ajit Kumar, Member (T) and Ajayan T.V., Member (J)
  • Shri K. Sankaranarayan, Adv., for the Appellant
  • Shri Anoop Singh, Authorised Representative, for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The Appellant, acting as lessor, entered into a notarized lease agreement with the lessee for vacant land, with a separate lease deed stipulating a fixed yearly lease amount. The notarized agreement further provided that, as there were sources and assets in the property, the lessee would pay the lessor 75% of receipts every month as additional lease amount. A joint agreement between the lessor, lessee, and the District Collector recorded that the quarrying lease was granted by the District Collector on the lessee’s application for quarrying and carrying away minor minerals under the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Rules, 1959. The agreements collectively established that the lessee bore all risks, maintained the property, deposited security, paid seigniorage fees, and complied with statutory requirements. Both parties disclosed the additional lease amounts as rent before the Income Tax authorities and in financial statements. The Department issued a show cause notice alleging that the Appellant had provided “renting of immovable property” service taxable under Sections 65B(44) and 65B(51) of the Finance Act, 1994. The Appellant contended that the arrangement was a joint venture on a principal-to-principal basis involving fixed-ratio revenue sharing, attracting the mutuality doctrine; that tax could not be determined by nomenclature or accounting treatment; that the transaction amounted to a sale exigible to VAT; and that the lessee acted as hired labour while the lessor produced excisable goods. The matter was accordingly placed before the CESTAT. 

High Court Held

The CESTAT held that the parties were ad idem on the transaction being a lease, and the quantification of additional lease amount as a percentage of receipts did not alter its character as rent. Reading the lease deed, notarized agreements, and joint agreement together, there was no indication of a joint venture involving shared responsibilities, joint control, or mutual risk in mining operations. The lessee alone undertook quarrying risks, and subsequent documents, including TDS exemption certificates and income tax filings, consistently presented the transaction as renting of immovable property. The Tribunal held that the leasing of vacant land fell within “renting” as defined in Section 65B(41) of the Finance Act, 1994, was a declared service under Section 66E(a), and was not covered by the “charitable activities” exemption under Sl. No. 4 of para 2(k) of Notification No. 25/2012-ST, dated 20-06-2012, nor within the negative list. The service tax liability arose solely from the leasing transaction, and mining operations were not subject to the impugned demand. Consequently, the lessor was held liable to pay service tax under Section 66B. 

List Of Case Cited

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