9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 116X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 65(90a) of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellants were registered with the Department and were paying service tax under the category of "Mandap Keeper Service". The appellant had buildings/shops, which were given out to people for running business in terms of Mukhyamantri Swalamban Yojna and similar such schemes. The appellants contended that the considerations received for giving out these shops to the beneficiaries cannot be taxed under "renting of immovable property" service. 2. The Original Authority adjudicating the notice issued against the appellant held that the appellants are liable to service tax of Rs. 70,08,745/-. The period covered is 2007-08 to 2011-2012. Penalties were also imposed under Section 76, 77 and 78 of the F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mbiguity that the appellant did provide these shops for a consideration to various persons. There is no exemption from tax liability of such activity. The status of service provider has no consequence for tax liability. He relied on the decision of the Tribunal in M/s.Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Ltd. (RIICO LTD) - 2017 -TIOL-1725-CESTAT-DEL. 5. We have heard both the sides and perused the appeal records. 6. On the first issue regarding the liability of the appellant to pay service tax under the category of "renting of immovable property service" , we note that the shops, which are given out on rent are used for commercial purposes. We have perused sample copies of agreements. The appellant could not p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the Tribunal in case of Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority - 87 VST 461 (T-Delhi) as affirmed by the decision of the Hon'ble High Court as 2015 87 VST 496 (Allahabad). 8. In view of the above discussion and analysis, we find no case for the appellant against the tax liability as confirmed by the lower authorities. However, we note that the rate applied for tax demand carried certain errors. After applying service tax rate of 12.36%, further, addition of cesses have also been made. This appears to be an apparent error which require re-calculation by the jurisdictional authorities. 9. The appellant strongly contested the demand on limitation also. We note that the appellant is a statutory authority functioning as a local Go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
