Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2022 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (11) TMI 1147 - AT - Service TaxRejection of refund of Service tax - service tax paid wrongly at the time of purchase of the said shops/ flats, to the exchequer through service provider - service was exempt as per the entry 13 (c) of the Notification No 25/2012-ST, which was denied - interpretation of the word “building”, used in the notification - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- In the case of COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT) , MUMBAI VERSUS M/S. DILIP KUMAR AND COMPANY & ORS. [2018 (7) TMI 1826 - SUPREME COURT], Hon’ble Supreme Court has itself rejected the argument advanced to the effect that strict interpretation and literal interpretation are the same. The entry at S No 13 (c) of the Exemption Notification No 25/2012-ST., what has been exempted from payment of the service tax by the said entry is a building owned by an entity registered under section 12 AA of the Income tax Act, 1961(43 of 1961) and meant predominantly for religious use by general public. Undisputedly the appellant is an entity registered under section 12AA of Income Tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), and the premises held by them are meant predominantly for religious use by general public. Thus the appellant are entity who are eligible to claim the benefit of this exemption. revenue also do not dispute this aspect. The only objection which has been raised is to the word “building” used in the notification whereas appellant are claiming exemption in respect of shop and flats purchased by them from the M/s Yog Reality. In the impugned order and during the course of arguments learned authorized representative has sought to distinguish the decisions of ASHA MURARKA AND ORS. VERSUS THE KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS. [2015 (4) TMI 1349 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] and in the case of NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE NANGAL TOWNSHIP VERSUS BHAKRA MANAGEMENT BOARD, CHANDIGARH AND ORS. [1999 (8) TMI 1016 - SUPREME COURT] from the facts of following case and have argued that as per this decision a flat in a building should be construed as separate unit. A flat is in building. Multi storey buildings are divided into flats or units. Thus, the word “building” used in entry at Sl No 13 (c) of the Notification No 25/2012-ST is wide enough cover the shop and flats purchased by the appellant in the project being developed by the M/s Yog Reality. That being so benefit of exemption under the said entry cannot be denied to the appellant on this ground. Principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- Authorized representative has raise the issue of unjust enrichment. However he has failed to specify how the same can be applied in the present case where the claimant is recipient of the services and the consumer of service. Appeal allowed.
|