TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 660X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay interest and they should pay the same, the Officers proceeded to issue show cause notice straightaway. Section 73(3) contemplates non issue of show cause notice in the event of an assessee paying full amount of service tax with interest. When the section and provisos are read together, in this case also, a letter should have been written to the assessee to pay interest and if they fail to pay the interest, show cause notice should have been issued. There is no evidence on record to show that any such letter was written by the Revenue. Time limitation - SCN was issued on 24.08.2016 demanding interest for the period from 1.6.2008 to 30.09.2011 - Held that:- There is no ingredient of mis-statement or suppression of facts with an inten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its that no service tax was paid in view of the legal uncertainty about the taxability of renting of immovable property prevailing during the relevant period. This bonafide belief of the appellant got confirmed by the decision of Hon ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 18.04.2009 as reported in [2009 (237) ELT 209)], which held that renting of immovable property is not a service and accordingly not leviable to the service tax, Ld. Advocate further submits that by virtue of Finance Act, 2010, renting of immovable property was made taxable with retrospective effect from 01.06.2007 by substituting section 65(105)(zzzz) of Finance Act, 2010. The retrospective amendment was upheld by Hon ble High Court of Bombay vide their order dated 04.08 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onths on or before 01.11.2011 and the appellant have paid the first instalment only on 29.11.2011 and hence they are liable to pay interest on the delayed payment. 4. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. I find that the appellants had paid the entire demand of ₹ 21,43,717/- as under: (a) Ist instalment on 29.11.2011 Challan No. 00008 ₹ 3,57,287/- (b) 2nd instalment on 02.01.2012 Challan No. 00006 Rs.3,57,287/- (c) 3rd instalment on 29.02.2012 Challan No. 00008 ₹ 3,57,285/- Intimation given to JRO on 09.03.2012. Rs.10,71,859/- Appeal No. ST ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nded period cannot be invoked in this case. However, as the appellants have explained that the entire liability of service tax had been paid, I find that Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CC Madras vs. TVS Whirlpool Limited as reported in [2000(119) E.L.T. A177 (S.C)] has held that it is only reasonable that the period of limitation that applies to a claim for the principal amount should also apply to the claim for interest thereon. We find no merit in the appeals and they are dismissed with costs. On perusal of records, I do not find any ingredient of mis-statement or suppression of facts with an intent to evade payment of service tax. I find that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the appellant laying down that the period of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
