TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 807X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bhai Patel [2015 (9) TMI 790 - CESTAT MUMBAI] held that 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, benefit on notification was extended. The co-owners of the property cannot be considered as liable to pay Service Tax (jointly or severally) as the Revenue has identified the services provider and the service recipients for imposing the Service Tax liability which are individuals. Therefore, the Service Tax liability is not sustainable. The demand of Service Tax against the appellants is not sus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; 10 Lakhs therefore, assessee is not liable to pay the Service Tax. Revenue is of the view that as the appellants have collectively and jointly let out the property and total rent received on the property is more than the threshold limit as per the Notification No. 06/2005-ST dt. 01.03.2005, therefore, the appellants are liable to pay Service Tax under the category of Renting of Immovable Property Services. In these set of facts, show cause notice dt 23.10.2008 was issued to the appellants to demand the Service Tax of ₹ 18,58,400/-. The same was adjudicated and the demand of Service Tax of ₹ 18,58,400/- along with interest was confirmed and penalties on all the appellants were also imposed. In appeal, the demand was upheld alon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 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 survey Extract as evidence regarding ownership o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2009-10 46,72,744/- 4 2010-11 52,63,304/- 5 2011-12 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 ₹ 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 suppor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion or any inspection 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 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- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tax (jointly or severally) as the Revenue has identified the services provider and the service recipients for imposing the Service Tax liability which are individuals. Therefore, the Service Tax liability is not sustainable. The same view has been taken by this Tribunal in following cases : i) Jaspal Singh Others vs CCE, Jalandhar 2017 (5 )TMI.895 (CESTAT, Chandigarh) ii) Sarojben Khusalchand others vs CST Ahmedabad 2017 (5) TMI 240- (CESTAT Ahmedabad). 7. In view of the above observations, we hold that the demand of Service Tax against the appellants is not sustainable as the appellants are entitled to benefit of Notification No. 06/2005-ST dt. 01.03.2005. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. 8. In result, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
