Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2020 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (6) TMI 279 - AT - Service TaxRecovery of Service tax - Renting of immovable property Service - benefit of exemption Notification No. 06/2005-ST dated 01.03.2005 - period Apri, 2009 to March, 2014 - threshold limit of ₹ 10 lakhs - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the period of demand is 2009 to 2014 i.e. pre as well as post Negative Regime. It is also admitted that gross rent received by appellant during these years is ₹ 15253485/- whereupon service-tax payable is ₹ 1748702/-. It is nowhere has been denied that some part of rent is received for sheds/shops/godowns used for the purpose of agricultural produce. With the introduction of Negative List Regime of Taxation w.e.f. 1.7.2012, the appellants' services were excluded from the tax liability - It is clear that the appellants, being an Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee, is excluded from the tax liability in terms of the above provisions. Services relating to agricultural produce by way of storage or warehousing are in the negative list - the appellants are not liable to service tax on renting of immovable property used for storage of agricultural produce in the market area - the adjudicating authority has by twisting the legal position has denied the exemption by mentioning Mandi Parished wrongly. Valuation - inclusion of rent received - clubbing of incomes of various Mandi Parishads - HELD THAT:- The adjudicating authority has wrongly clubbed to incomes of various Mandi Parishads to that of appellant’s value of rent received. Hence, said amount is also liable to be deducted - Since each Mandi Samiti has its own PAN number and that all the statutory dues like Income tax, House Tax & other taxes are deposited separately & individually, thus each Samiti is an independent legal entity and should be treated as a separate body - clubbing receipts of all Samitis is not justified and benefit of exemption limits should be given to the appellant. The rent received by appellant qua sheds rented for commercial purpose is liable to service tax. Also, the Proviso to Section 73(1) can be invoked only, where the service tax has not been paid or levied or short paid or short levied, by reason of fraud; or collusion; or willful mis-statement; or suppression of facts; or contravention of any of the provisions of Chapter V of Finance Act, 1994 or rules made thereunder with intent to evade payment of service tax by the person chargeable with service tax - Admittedly, the appellants are a Government Organisation; their functions are regulated by the said enactment and the rules. In such situation, it is clear that there will be a rebuttable presumption regarding non-existence of any of these ingredients on the part of the appellant. As there is no evidence of the appellants' malafide act to evade Service Tax liability by resorting to conduct, which will attract any of the serious allegation listed in the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Act - the demand confirmed against the appellant is liable to be set aside because the value of rent which falls within tax net and within normal period of limitations remains less than the threshold value of ₹ 10 lakhs in the impugned notification - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|