9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 895X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on order and the issue involved in all these appeals is common, therefore, all the appeals are taken up together for disposal by common order. 2. The brief facts of the case are that all the appellants are co-owners of the property SCO-43-44, Sector-8-C, Chandigarh. They let out the said property on rent and received the rent separately as per their share in the property hence, did not pay service tax on the amount of rent received as the amount of rent was within the threshold limit and they were entitled to avail benefit of Notification No. 06/2005-ST dated 01.03.2005. If the threshold limit of the services provided by the assessee less than Rs. 10 Lakhs therefore, the assessee are not liable to pay services. The Revenue of the view is t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed property; service tax liability arises on such renting of property. 8. On deeper perusal of impugned order, we find that the first appellate authority has considered all the angles in the dispute and came to the correct conclusion. The findings of first appellate authority is as under. "6.2 On mere reading of the Order-in-Original, it is evident that the adjudicating officer has considered above named four persons as one person 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8) Rs. 29,21,048/- 2. 2008-09 Rs. 36,27,024/- 3. 2009-10 Rs. 46,72,744/- 4. 2010-11 Rs. 52,63,304/- 5. 2011-12 Rs. 44,28,360/- But as the rent was distributed equally among each of the appellant, it is evident that each of them received an amount lesser than Rs. 8 lakhs and 10 lakhs in the years 2007-08 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-S.T., dated 01.03.2005. The appellant s case is also supported by the Tribunal s decision in the case of Dinesh K. Patwa V. CST, Ahmedabed which is ref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed out. Instead in the SCN, one statement of Shri Chandulal Vishrambhai Patel is only referred to which was recorded 22.02.2012 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 of evade service tax cannot be denied. Considering all these facts, I agree with the appellant s contention that this case was squarely covered under sub-section (3) of Section 73 which provided not to issue any notice under sub-section (1) of Section 73 if the service tax not levied or paid was paid along with interest by the per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
