2015 (1) TMI 1001 - AT - Service Tax

Waiver of pre deposit - SSI exemption - Held that - Returns have been filed in the individual capacity and not HUF. As submitted by the learned counsel, the issue is covered by the precedent decision of the Tribunal in the case of Dinesh Chandra V. Patel Vs. CST, Ahmedabad 2013 (12) TMI 1428 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD and other decisions relied upon by the learned counsel. Moreover we also find that show-cause notice itself recognized the appellants in two groups one of the present two appellants and other of the children of the brother of father of Shri Ratilal Naranji Patel. In view of these facts and circumstances and in view of the precedent decisions of the Tribunal, we consider that in this case also, the requirement of predeposit has to be waived and stay against recovery has to be granted during the pendency of appeals - Stay granted.

Summary

Issues: Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeal, Service Tax Liability on Co-owners, Interpretation of Separate Entities, Pre-deposit Requirement

Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeal:
The appellant sought condonation of a 377-day delay in filing the appeal, stating it was a supplementary appeal against a common order. The delay was condoned, and the matter was taken up for decision.

Service Tax Liability on Co-owners:
The appeals of two appellants were taken up together as they involved the same issue. The service tax was demanded on the ground that the co-owners of the building should be treated as one entity, not separate service providers. The appellants argued that they should be considered as separate entities, citing individual lease agreements, separate income tax returns, and inheritance under the Succession Act.

Interpretation of Separate Entities:
The learned counsel for the appellants contended that each appellant should be treated as a separate entity, supported by the fact that income tax returns were filed individually, not as a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). The Tribunal found support in precedent decisions and the show-cause notice's recognition of the appellants as distinct groups. Consequently, the requirement of pre-deposit was waived, and a stay against recovery was granted during the appeal's pendency.

This judgment clarifies the criteria for determining service tax liability on co-owners, emphasizing the importance of individual status and separate entities for tax purposes. The decision underscores the significance of legal precedents and the contents of official documents, such as income tax returns and show-cause notices, in resolving tax disputes.