Tax Management India. Com
                        Law and Practice: A Digital eBook ...

Category of Documents

TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts Notifications Circulars Classification Forms Manuals SMS News Articles
Highlights
D. Forum
What's New

Share:      

        Home        
 

TMI Blog

Home List
← Previous Next →

2019 (11) TMI 440

..... n of penalty - HELD THAT:- The service tax was levied on the activity of renting of immovable property service by giving retrospective effect to Section 65(105)(zzzz) of the Finance Act from 01/06/2007 itself. The said Finance Act received ascent of the Hon’ble President of India on 28/05/2012 and as per Section 80(2) of the Finance Act, payment of tax and interest was to be made within 6 months i.e. on or before 27/11/2012. Further, the service tax amount of ₹ 47,37,557/- for the period June 2007 to August, 2007 has been discharged by the appellant on 25/10/2012 prior to the stipulated date. Further, as per the show-cause notice, the demand for service tax was for an amount of ₹ 43,68,851/- and the appellant has paid S .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

..... BER For the Appellant : Shri GOWRI SHANKAR H.R., Advocate For the Respondent : Smt. C.V. Savitha, Superintendent(AR) ORDER The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dt. 10/12/2018 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) whereby the Commissioner(Appeals) rejected the appeal of the appellant. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant was providing non-banking financial services and was engaged in the activity of Renting of Immovable Property Services to commercial concerns but had not discharged the applicable service tax. The appellant accepted the liability for the period from June 2007 to August 2012 which was ₹ 43,68,851/-. They paid the amount of ₹ 47,37,557/- on 25/10/2012. It was observed that .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

..... ded in the impugned order. He further submitted that the appellants are not liable to pay interest for the period 06/2007 to 06/2010 based on the Apex Court ruling in the case of Star India (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Mumbai. He also submitted that since renting of immovable property was in dispute from the very beginning and the imposition of service tax on renting of immovable property was set aside by the Delhi High Court in the case of Home Solution Retail India Ltd. Vs. UOI [2010(19) STR 3. The said judgment was reversed by the Full Bench decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Home Solution Retails India Ltd. [2011(21) STR 109 (Delhi)]. Further appeals against the decision of the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court and a decision of the .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

..... STR 412 (Tri. Del.)] iii. Indiabulls Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Mumbai [2017(48) STR 131 (Tri. Mumbai)] iv. Sethi Tools Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE,C&ST, Vadodara-II [2015(40) STR 280 (Tri. Ahmd.)] 5.1. After considering the submissions of both sides and perusal of the material on record, I find that the service tax was levied on the activity of renting of immovable property service by giving retrospective effect to Section 65(105)(zzzz) of the Finance Act from 01/06/2007 itself. The said Finance Act received ascent of the Hon ble President of India on 28/05/2012 and as per Section 80(2) of the Finance Act, payment of tax and interest was to be made within 6 months i.e. on or before 27/11/2012. Further I find that the service tax amount of &# .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

..... ervice Tax, interest, or penalty a fine or other charges which may not have been collected. As against such as specific clause which provides for recovery of interest, nothing survives in this appeal filed by the assessee for non-recovery of interest by the adjudicating authority. We do not find any reason to interfere in adjudicating authority s order for recovery of interest from the appellants. In view of the above we uphold the demand of interest in respect of the amounts paid by the appellant on amount of retrospective amendment. Therefore in view of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Gulmohar Park Mall Pvt. Ltd. cited supra and the Division Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Indiabulls Properties Pvt. Ltd., I am of .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

 

 

← Previous Next →

 

 

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

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.
|| Blog || Site Map - Recent || Site Map ||