2011 (7) TMI 176 - AT - Service Tax

Demand - renting of immovable property - Assessee had obtained service tax registration in Mumbai from the Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of Service Tax Division-V, Mumbai, vide registration certificate dated 29.01.2009 - In the instant case, the service has been provided at Mumbai and the registered office is also situated in Mumbai. Therefore, the Assistant Commissioner, Ratnagiri has no jurisdiction over the activities undertaken by the respondent in Mumbai - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
Jurisdictional authority to demand service tax on renting of immovable properties in Mumbai.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the department against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune-II. The case involved M/s Helios Food Additives Pvt. Ltd., engaged in manufacturing food products and renting immovable properties in Mumbai. The department issued a show-cause notice for non-payment of service tax, which the assessee contested, arguing that the Assistant Commissioner at Ratnagiri lacked jurisdiction. The lower adjudicating authority confirmed the duty demand and penalties, but the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order, stating that since the appellants were registered in Mumbai, the Assistant Commissioner at Ratnagiri had no jurisdiction. The department appealed this decision.

The department argued that since the assessee's factory was in Ratnagiri and they had a service tax registration there, the Ratnagiri Assistant Commissioner had jurisdiction. However, the respondent's counsel contended that the Mumbai Central Excise Commissionerate had jurisdiction over Mumbai, where the service was provided, and the assessee had a separate service tax registration in Mumbai before the show-cause notice was issued. They relied on a Tribunal judgment stating that the jurisdiction lies with the Commissioner where the service provider's registered office is located. The Tribunal found that the service was provided in Mumbai, and the registered office was also in Mumbai, making the Assistant Commissioner at Ratnagiri lacking jurisdiction. Therefore, the proceedings initiated at Ratnagiri were deemed unsustainable, and the department's appeal was dismissed.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the lower appellate authority's decision, emphasizing that the Assistant Commissioner at Ratnagiri did not have jurisdiction over the services provided in Mumbai by the assessee, who was registered in Mumbai. The judgment highlighted the importance of jurisdiction based on the location of the service provider's registered office, as established in previous Tribunal rulings.