9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 641X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pect of premises so leased out or rented out the clients are responsible for doing internal maintenance and repair work. However, the business complex has got certain common areas and facilities like a central hall, lifts, escalators, public convenience facilities etc. which are used by all the clients or beneficial to them. The applicant is doing maintenance and repair activity for such common facilities and this is done as per the agreement with the clients to whom distinct premises is leased out or rented out. On the rental income or the lease income received from the clients the applicant is paying service tax. However, the applicant is recovering the amount spent by them on the maintenance of common facilities by distributing such cost ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssing of the said stay order dated 8.6.2012, there have been two developments. Firstly, he submits that The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India 2012-TIOL-966-HC-DEL-ST has set aside Rule 5 of Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006. He argues that the expenses recovered by the applicant cannot be considered as value of service once the said rule is struck down. He argues that the actual service provided by him is renting out immovable property on which he is paying service tax. The additional amounts collected are based on actual expenditure incurred by the applicant towards maintenance of the common facilities and reimbursement of such expenditure on pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... intaining centralized air-conditioning installed at the shopping complex for which another agency was already paying service tax. In the present case it is not brought on record that for the disputed amount, there is another agency which has already paid the service tax and cost of such services is distributed. Therefore, he submits that the decision of the Bangalore Bench is not applicable to the facts of this case and the stay order passed for the earlier period should be followed in this case also. 7. Considered arguments on both sides. We find that this Bench has already called for pre-deposit of 50% of the tax amount on the same issue for the previous period. The two facts pointed out by the counsel for applicant does not prima facie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
