GST Helpdesk   Subscription   Demo   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (9) TMI 790 - CESTAT MUMBAI

2015 (9) TMI 790 - CESTAT MUMBAI - 2015 (40) S.T.R. 1146 (Tri. - Mumbai) - Renting of Immovable Property - Co-owners / Joint property - SSI exemption upto 10 lakhs - notification no. 6/2005-ST dated 01/03/2005 - whether the respondent and his brothers are to be treated as association of persons or other wise and service tax liability on it arises; should be confined without the benefit of the notification No. 6/2005-ST - Held that:- the ownership of the Property and providing of taxable renting .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Shri. S.V. Nair Supdt. (AR) For the Respondent : Shri, Bharat Raichandani, Adv ORDER Per: M.V. Ravindran This appeal is filed by the Revenue against Order-in-Appeal No. RPS/179/NSK/2013 dated 13-06-2013. 2. The facts in brief, leading to the present appeal, are that the appellants are co-owners of the property located at Patel Plaza', Near Govinda Rickshaw Stop, M G Road, Jalgaon and there is no legal partition or division amongst them. They entered into a joint agreement with M/s. Max New Y .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ng the Services of Renting of Immovable Property as per Sub-Clause (ZZZZ) of Section 65(105) of Finance Act, 1994, which defines taxable service as any service provided or to be provided to any person, by any other person, in relation to renting of immovable property for use in the course of furtherance of business or commerce. After recording various submissions, show cause notice was issued to the appellant. 3. Appellant contested the show cause notice on merits as well as on limitation. Adjud .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

11, but set aside various penalties and upheld the penalties under the provisions of Section 77(1) (a) and Section 77(2) of the of the Finance Act, 1994. The respondent is not in appeal against such an order. 4. Learned Departmental Representative would draw our attention to the facts of the case and findings of the adjudicating authority. It is his submission that the respondent here-in had a premise which was rented out to various banks and an amount was collected as rent. It is his submission .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s in use for commonly for business. He would submit that the benefit of notification no. 6/2005-ST dated 01/03/2005 is not applicable and is in respect of qua-service and not qua service provider . The exemption granted by the first appellate authority under this notification is incorrect. It is also his submission that the first appellate authority had set aside the penalties under Section 76 and 78 incorrectly. It is his submission that there was an intentional suppression of the facts to evad .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

iv Sagar Estate has 1993 (201) ITR 953 BOM has interpreted the expression association of persons . 6. We have considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. The issue that needs to be decided in this case is whether the respondent and his brothers are to be treated as association of persons or other wise and service tax liability on it arises; should be confined (sic) without the benefit of the notification No. 6/2005-ST. 7. It is undisputed that the property which has be .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on for determining tax liability and imposition of penalties without telling any legal basis for doing so. The appellants have contested the Order in Original mainly on the grounds that rented property belongs to four separate persons (all brothers) but the service tax has been demanded wrongly by the department from the appellants by clubbing the rent received by all the co-owners and, therefore, the demand off tax is not maintainable on this ground alone. In support they have produced a City S .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n 10/4/2012 and all the four co-owners individually paid their Service tax liability along with interest on 14/2/2012. Thus, the ownership of the Property and providing of taxable renting of immovable Property by the four appellants in this case is in their individual capacity and, therefore, their tax liability should have been determined by considering their individual rental receipts and not collective one. From the various lease agreements made with above mentioned Commercial firms, it canno .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ppellant, it is evident that each of them received an amount lesser than ₹ 8 lakhs and 10 lakhs in the years 2007-09 and 2008-09 respectively which is below the exemption limit of eight lakhs and ten lakhs during the relevant period. The appellants were, therefore, not liable to pay service tax on the amounts received by them during these two years by virtue of Notification No. 6/2005-ST dated 01.03.2005. The appellant's case is also supported by the Tribunal's decision in the case .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

le to pay service tax and eligible for the exemption under general exemption Notification 6/2005 ST dated 1/3/2005 during the period 2007-08 and 2008-09, no service tax was payable during the said period. Hence, the question of penalty under Section 76 for the said period does not arise. For the subsequent period i.e. 2009-10 & 2010-11, the appellants have already accepted their tax liability and paid Service tax along with interest on 14/2/2012. The said payment of service tax is certainly .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

h not payment of service tax by the appellants was pointed out. Instead in the SCN, one statement of Shri Chandulal Vishrambhai Patel is only referred to which was recorded on 22/2/2012 which is 8 days after the appellants had paid service tax along with interest on their own. Thus, the claim of the appellant that they had paid service tax for the years 2009-10 and 2010-11 on their own initiative and there was no suppression of facts etc on their part with any intention to evade service tax cann .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version