Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Al Rahaba Builders Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Mangalore

2018 (1) TMI 494 - CESTAT BANGALORE

Penalties - non-payment of service tax - renting of immovable property services - Held that: - during the relevant time there was a dispute as to whether the activity of Renting of Immovable Property is subjected to levy of service tax and even today the matter has not been finally settled and the same is pending before the Apex Court - the appellant has paid the service tax along with interest in spite of the fact that he has not collected the same from his service recipient - Further there was .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tely provided in this chapter, shall be liable to a penalty which may extend to ₹ 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only). - Appeal allowed in part. - ST/20288/2017-SM - Final Order No. 20023 / 2018 - Dated:- 4-1-2018 - Shri S. S. Garg, Judicial Member Shri Rajesh Kumar, CA Hiragange & Associates For the Appellant Shri Madhupsharan, Assistant Commissioner ( AR ) For the Respondent ORDER Per : S. S. Garg The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 28.11.2016 passed b .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ce tax on renting services they stopped paying service tax since October 2008. After being informed by the Department during July 2012 they have paid the service tax dues from October 2008 to March 2012 with interest. That as per Section 80(2) of the Finance Act inserted from 28.05.2012 no penalty may be imposed on them since they paid the dues before 17.10.2012. During the investigation they paid service tax of ₹ 6,28,145/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Twenty Eight Thousand One Hundred and Forty Fiv .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t, 1994. The amounts paid by the service provider were appropriated. Aggrieved by the Order-in-Original, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner who vide the impugned order rejected the appeal. 2. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 3. Learned consultant for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed by not considering the law and the decisions rendered by the Tribunal. He further submitted that the entire se .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

to the appellant and that s why the appellant did not pay the same to the Government. He further submitted that by the impugned order, the penalty on account of late fee under Section 70 of the Finance Act 1994 has wrongly been imposed as the said Section is not applicable in the present case. In support of his submission, he relied upon the decision of Sree Kanya Combines Vs. CCE, Visakhapatnam-II 2016 (43) S.T.R. 604 (Tri.-Hyd.) and submitted that this decision is squarely applicable in the f .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ther the activity of Renting of Immovable Property is subjected to levy of service tax and even today the matter has not been finally settled and the same is pending before the Apex Court. It is also a fact that the appellant has paid the service tax along with interest in spite of the fact that he has not collected the same from his service recipient. Further I find that there was no suppression of fact on the part of the appellant as he has shown the rent in the ST-3 returns and he had a bona .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nefit under sub-section (2) of Section 80, the benefit under sub-section (1) of Section 80 will be taken away. As per sub-section (1) of Section 80 if the assessee proves reasonable cause for failure, then no penalty shall be imposable. The appellant has established that the failure was caused because they were a small scale service provider with regard to the service of sale of space for advertisement . They bona fidely believed that no tax was payable on the services of renting of immovable pr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

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

Go to Mobile Version