Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2023 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (5) TMI 98 - CESTAT AHMEDABADLevy of Service Tax - Renting of Immovable Property Service - rent recovered towards renting of shops, godown, office etc. to the commission agents/ traders - appellant is Agriculture Produce Market Committee (APMC) - Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The issue has been decided against the assessee in the case of M/S. KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI AND OTHERS VERSUS CCE & ST, JAIPUR I & JAIPUR II [2017 (5) TMI 1465 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] where it was held that The appellants are liable to pay service tax under the category of “renting of immovable property service” for the period upto 30.06.2012 - For the period from 1.7.2012 (Negative List Regime), the appellants are not liable to pay service tax under the said tax entry in respect of shed/shop/premises leased out to the traders/others for storage of agricultural produce in the marketing area. The Negative List will not cover the activities of renting of immovable property for other than agricultural produce. In view of the above decision which was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI, NEW MANDI YARD, ALWAR VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX, ALWAR [2022 (2) TMI 1113 - SUPREME COURT], the issue on merit has been decided against the assessee. Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The demand for the extended period is not sustainable on the ground that there is no malafide act to evade service tax. Cum-tax value - HELD THAT:- The appellant is eligible for such benefit. Revenue is at liberty to work-out the demand for the normal period by extending the cum-tax benefit and recover/ adjust from the deposit made by the appellant, if any - Appeal allowed.
|