GST Helpdesk   Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
GST - Acts SGST - Acts GST - FAQ GST Rates, Exemption CGST Notif. IGST Notif. Exempt Income Salary income
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2017 (5) TMI 895 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH

2017 (5) TMI 895 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH - TMI - Renting of Immovable Property Services - benefit of N/N. 06/2005-ST dated 01.03.2005 - property owned jointly - Revenue is of the view that as the appellants have jointly let out the property and total rent received on the property is more than threshold limit of N/N. 06/2005-ST dated 01.03.2005 ibid, therefore, the appellants are liable to pay service under the category of Renting of Immovable Property Services - Held that: - the issue has already 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

ingh, Member (Technical) Sh. Poojan Malhotra, Advocate for the Appellant Sh. R.K. Sharma, AR for the Respondent ORDER Per Ashok Jindal The appellants are in appeal against the impugned order wherein the demand of service tax has been confirmed under the category of Renting of Immovable Property Services . All the appeals are arising for the common 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 bri .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

#8377; 10 Lakhs therefore, the assessee are not liable to pay services. The Revenue of the view is that as the appellants have jointly let out the property and total rent received on the property is more than threshold limit of Notification No. 06/2005-ST dated 01.03.2005 ibid, therefore, the appellants are liable to pay service under the category of Renting of Immovable Property Services. In these set of facts, the proceedings were initiated against the appellants and consequently the by adjudi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

f CCE, Nasik Vs. Deoram Vishrambhai Patel reported in 2015 (40) STR 1146 (Tri. Mumbai) wherein this Tribunal observed as under: 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 vise and service tax liability on it arises, should be confined without the benefit of the notification No. 6/2005-S.T. 7. It is undisputed that t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ersons 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 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ation Certificate on 10.04.2012 and all the four co-owners individually paid their service tax liability along with interest on 14.02.2012. 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 Comme .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d equally among each of the appellant, it is evident that each of them received an amount lesser than ₹ 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 Tribuna .....

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 were individually liable to pay service tax and eligible for the exemption under general exemption Notifiation 6/2005-S.T., dated 1.03.2005 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 14.02.2012. the said payment .....

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 etc. on the basis of which 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 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 .....

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