TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 820X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tax. However, since the total receipt of rent by individual is less than the threshold limit as provided under exemption notification No. 6/2005/ST dated 01.03.2005 co-owners are not liable to pay Service Tax. This issue has been considered time and again in various judgments. It is settled that even though for one single property if the co-owners are receiving the rent individually in their account the total rent cannot be considered as one for levy or Service Tax. Every individual who receive the rent as co-owners he should be treated as individual Assessee and if the total receipt does crosses threshold limit of exemption they are liable to pay Service Tax otherwise not. Applicability of judgement in the case of Gtail Corporation - HELD THAT:- As regard the judgment relied upon by the revenue in the case of Gtail Corporation, on going through the same, it is found that in that case the fact are totally different in as much as the rent was first received by the partnership firm and subsequently the partnership firm has distributed amount of rent to individual partners. Accordingly, it is a firm who is the recipient of the rent and thereafter individual share has been dist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ir individual Accounts. 5. Against the said consideration RM would also deduct TDS on year to year basis and issue TDS Certificates to co-owners to ensure that the actual rent amount gets credited to the Accounts of the co-owners. 6. On the rent received by the co-owners, no Service Tax was paid by them because the rent amount received by them in individual capacity was less than Rs. 10 Lacs which made them entitled to the benefit of the basic threshold exemption in terms of Notification No. 06/2005- ST dated 01.03.2005. 1.1 The case of the department is that all the persons who received the rent though individually but being partners of partnership firm that is appellant the appellant is liable to pay the Service Tax. 2. Shri Jigar Shah, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the department had erroneously issued the show cause notice to the appellant that is Partnership firm because rent amount was actually received by the partners of the co-owners individually and independently and not the appellant which is a partnership firm. He submitted that the show cause notice was issued on the basis that the agreement for this was entered in between ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssets I unsustainable. CST v. UFO Moviez India Ltd. 2022-VIL-7-SC-ST Quippo Energy Pvt. Ltd. v. CST ST Ahmedabad 2022 (12) TMI 1440-CESTAT AHMEDABAD The present case involves question of interpretation of law; therefore, extended period of limitation not invokable. M/s. Utkal Builders Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs Service Tax 2023 (9) TMI 1285 CESTAT Kolkata M/s. Venus Laminations Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Daman 2018 (3) TMI 1002 Maa Communication Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore 2018 (2) TMI 327 CESTAT BANGALORE M/s. Spencer International Hotels Ltd. v. CGST CE, Chennai 2023 (6) TMI 99-CESTAT CHENNAI In view of revenue sharing agreement existing between the parties to agreement, the element of consideration i.e. the quid pro quo for services, is absent in the present case. Inox Leisure Ltd. v. CST, Hyderabad 2021 (10) TMI 893-CESTAT HYDERABAD CST v. Inox Leisure Ltd. 2022 (3) TMI 1206-SC ORDER M/s. Moti Talkies v. CST, Delhi-I 2020 (6) TMI 87- CESTAT NEW DELHI Shri Vinay Kumar, Proprietor of M/s Regal Theatre v. Principal CST, Del ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shold limit provided for exemption under Notification No. 6/2005-ST dated 01.05.2005. Therefore, there is no service tax liability on any of the appellant. Identical issue has been considered by this Tribunal in the case of Neenaben R Doshi others in Appeal No. ST/10248/2013-DB and passed the following order:- 4. Heard both the sides and perused the records. We find that though in respect of one property, there are joint owners owner is independent in respect of ownership of respective shares, therefore, whatsoever consideration received by an individual, it is the subject matter of taxation in respect of that individual person either as per income tax or as per service tax. Rental income of other co-joint owner cannot be considered. Therefore, in our considered view receipt of rental income by every individual is only subject to liability of service tax. If the value is below thresh-hold exemption limit in case of any individual, the same will not be taxable being exempted under Notification No. 06/05-ST dated 01.03.2005. At the same time in case of any individual person if the thresh-hold limit exceed in financial year, the same will be liable for service tax. This is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... property and provided the service of renting of immovable property, and received the rent in proportion to the shares in the immovable property. 10. In the result, the impugned orders are set aside and the appeals are allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per law. From the above judgment wherein various other judgments were relied upon, it is settled that even though for one single property if the co-owners are receiving the rent individually in their account the total rent cannot be considered as one for levy or Service Tax. Every individual who receive the rent as co-owners he should be treated as individual Assessee and if the total receipt does crosses threshold limit of exemption they are liable to pay Service Tax otherwise not. As regard the judgment relied upon by the revenue in the case of Gtail Corporation, on going through the same we find that in that case the fact are totally different in as much as the rent was first received by the partnership firm and subsequently the partnership firm has distributed amount of rent to individual partners. Accordingly, it is a firm who is the recipient of the rent and thereafter individual share has been distributed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
