2018 (10) TMI 559 - AT - Service Tax

Renting of immovable property service - co-owners of inherited property - threshold exemption to each co-owners separately - N/N. 6/2005-ST dt.1.3.2005 - Held that - The Tribunal in the case of Sarojben Khulsanchand & Ors. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Ahmedabad 2017 (5) TMI 240 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD , had considered the similar issue and held that The service Tax Registration of individual assessees for collection of service tax is PAN based, hence, collection of service tax from one of the co-owners, against his individual Registration for the total rent received by all co-owners separately, is neither supported by law nor by laid down procedure. Thus, it is difficult to accept the proposition advanced by the Revenue that all the co-owners providing the service of renting of immovable property be considered as an association of persons and the service tax on the total rent be collected from one of the co-owners. Demand do not sustain - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the co-owners of a commercial complex can individually avail the threshold exemption for service tax liability.
2. Whether the rental income received by each co-owner in proportion to their share in the jointly owned property can be clubbed together and assessed to service tax.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The case involved the question of whether the co-owners of a commercial complex could individually avail the threshold exemption for service tax liability. The department contended that the co-owners could not individually avail the exemption, leading to a demand for differential service tax. The original authority confirmed the tax liability, interest, and penalties. In appeal, the Commissioner upheld the order, prompting the appellants to approach the forum.

Issue 2:
During the hearing, the appellant's advocate argued that the exemption under Notification No.6/2005-ST applied to both co-owners individually. She asserted that the rent received by each owner based on their share in the property could not be clubbed together for service tax assessment. The advocate cited various Tribunal decisions supporting this position. On the contrary, the respondent supported the impugned order.

Upon hearing both sides and reviewing the facts, the bench found merit in the appellant's argument. They referred to the Tribunal's decision in the case of Sarojben Khusalchand Vs CST Ahmedabad, which emphasized that each co-owner receiving rent proportionate to their share should not be considered as an association of persons for service tax assessment. The bench highlighted that the Service Tax Registration of individual assesses is PAN-based, making it inappropriate to collect service tax from one co-owner for the total rent received by all co-owners separately. The bench also rejected the Revenue's argument that since the property was indivisible, service tax should be levied on the total rent without apportioning it among co-owners. Relying on previous Tribunal decisions, the bench allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and granting consequential relief as per law.

In conclusion, the judgment clarified that each co-owner of a jointly owned property can receive rent in proportion to their share without being considered an association of persons for service tax purposes. The decision aligned with established legal principles and previous Tribunal rulings, providing clarity on the issue at hand.