9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 855X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not sustainable. Renting of immovable property - Held that:- The endeavour of the Revenue to classify the transaction as renting of immovable property is prima facie mis-conceived since no ingredients of transfer of immovable property as defined to fall within the ambit of renting of immovable property under Section 65(105)(zzzz) of the Act are seen from the nature of the activities summarized in para 19 of the show cause notice. The relevant portion of the impugned adjudication order is equally vague. We are therefore prima facie satisfied that no relevant criteria of renting of immovable property are discernible in the transaction pursuant to which ₹ 1,72,34,500/- was received as consideration by the petitioner from M/s. Asian T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent, the petitioner procured water and supplied the same to the consumers of port services and received consideration for providing such service. This was considered by Revenue to be the gross consideration received for providing the taxable port service enumerated in Section 65(82) of the Finance Act, 1994 (Act). The transactions in this behalf namely, supply of water was during the period April 2005 to March, 2010, i.e., ending 31-3-2010. The show cause notice and the impugned adjudication order classified the activity of supply of water, as supply of water and port service ; for the periods prior and subsequent to 1-7-2010. Port service was amended by the Finance Act, 2010 with effect from 1-7-2010. Earlier, port services meant any se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the impugned adjudication order. We are therefore prima facie satisfied that the conclusion that supply of water is a taxable service, prior to 1-7-2010, is sustainable. 5. An amount of ₹ 21,31,184/- is confirmed in the impugned adjudication order for renting of immovable property. Para 19 of the show cause notice dated 22-10-2010 sets out the case of the Revenue in summary, on this aspect. Revenue alleges that the petitioner received ₹ 1,72,34,500/- from M/s. Asian Tanking Pvt. Ltd. acting on behalf of M/s. Great Bridge Group Ltd., Hong Kong for developing storage infrastructure at Kakinada Deep Water Port, whereunder M/s. Asian Tanking Pvt. Ltd. was required to assist the petitioner for developing oil product storage infra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ipient of goods transport agency service is not contested. The singular defence of the petitioner asserted before the adjudicating authority and reiterated before us is that no Service Tax was recovered from the service provider by the petitioner and therefore liability of the petitioner to remit the Service Tax does not arise. This is a contention that is stated to be rejected. Prima facie we find no merit on this contention. 7. On the aforesaid analysis, we are inclined to grant waiver of pre-deposit on condition that the petitioner remits ₹ 24,905/- plus the corresponding interest therein, within 4 weeks from today and reports compliance by 3-2-2014. In default, the appeal shall stand dismissed for failure of pre-deposit. On dep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
