Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2019 (11) TMI 440

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rther, 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 ₹ 47,37,557/- i.e. ₹ 3,68,706/- is paid in excess and subsequently for the period July 2010 to August 2012, appellant has also paid interest of ₹ 2,86,844/-. Demand of Interest - HELD THAT:- The appellants are liable to pay interest from June 2007 to June 20102. The appellant has already paid the interest from July 2010 to August, 2012 amounting to ₹ 2,84,844/- and now they are only liable to pay interest from .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... se 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 the appellant had not paid the entire interest liability on the same towards delayed payment under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994. A show-cause notice dt. 19/04/2013 was issued proposing to demand and appropriate the amount paid and proposing to impose penalty as per law. After considering the reply of the assessee, the adjudicatin .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 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 Bombay High Court taking a similar view are stated to be pending before the Apex Court. Therefore he has prayed that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of Section 80(2) and penalty should be dropped. He also relied upon the following decisions:- i. Gulmohar Park Mall Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Ahmedab .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 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 ₹ 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 I find that as per the show-cause notice, the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s 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 the view that the appellants are liable to pay interest from June 2007 to June .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates