9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (9) TMI 813 - AT - Service TaxClassification of services - renting of immovable property service - levy of interest - extended period of limitation - penalty - HELD THAT - The matter involved legal interpretation, which was litigated and even the tenant of the appellants had challenged the same before the Hon ble Kerala High Court. It is a matter of record that the said litigation is pending even as on date before the Hon ble Constitutional Bench of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of MINERAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ETC. VERSUS M/S STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA ORS 2011 (3) TMI 1554 - SUPREME COURT . Levy of interest - HELD THAT - The same is mandatory in nature, but however, the same has not been quantified by the adjudicating authority. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is held that any interest liability payable for the normal period alone could be demanded / adjusted. Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT - The matter involved legal interpretation, which was litigated and even the tenant of the appellants had challenged the same before the Hon ble Kerala High Court. It is a matter of record that the said litigation is pending even as on date before the Hon ble Constitutional Bench of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of MINERAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ETC. VERSUS M/S STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA ORS 2011 (3) TMI 1554 - SUPREME COURT . Penalty - HELD THAT - The suppression or fraud within the meaning of Section 78 cannot be attributed to the appellants for levying penalty under Section 78. Therefore, the penalty under Section 78 cannot sustain and to this extent, the impugned order stands set aside. Moreover, the plea that the demand that survives, as proposed in the Show Cause Notice, was only the penalty since the entire tax demand stood appropriated in the Order-in-Original, is agreed upon. Thus, the demand of interest under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 is concerned, is held to be payable for the normal period alone - imposition of penalty under Section 78 ibid. stands set aside and the appeals to this extent are allowed - invocation of extended period of limitation is not in order. Appeal disposed off.
Issues involved:
The issues involved in the legal judgment are the non-payment of Service Tax by the appellants for premises rented out, the issuance of a Show Cause Notice alleging contravention of various sections of the Finance Act, 1994, and the subsequent confirmation of demands by the adjudicating authority leading to appeals filed by the appellants. Summary of Judgment: Issue 1: Service Tax Demand and Appropriation The appellants were alleged to have not paid Service Tax for premises rented out, leading to a Show Cause Notice. The appellants contended that the lessee had remitted the Service Tax amount in a Fixed Deposit as per the directions of the High Court. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demands as proposed, ordering appropriation of the amounts already paid towards the demands. Issue 2: Appeals and Arguments Aggrieved by the demands, the appellants filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals), which were dismissed. The appellants then appealed to the forum. The appellants argued against the imposition of penalties and interest, stating that the Service Tax demand had been met. They specifically raised points regarding the non-invocation of the extended period, non-imposition of penalty, and non-levy of interest. Issue 3: Legal Interpretation and Findings The forum considered the legal interpretation involved, particularly regarding the extended period of limitation. The appellants had paid the entire demand with interest before the Show Cause Notice was issued. The forum found that no suppression or fraud could be alleged to invoke the extended period of limitation. The penalty under Section 78 was set aside, and it was noted that the demand that survived was only the penalty, as the tax demand had been appropriated. Issue 4: Conclusion and Disposition The forum held that interest was payable for the normal period alone, set aside the penalty under Section 78, and found the invocation of the extended period of limitation not in order. The appeals were disposed of accordingly. This summary provides a detailed overview of the judgment, addressing each issue involved and the corresponding legal arguments and findings.
|
