2016 (8) TMI 1027

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... oubt – Held that: - Undoubtedly there was some doubt about the scope of taxability of ‘renting of immovable property’ service. However, that dispute, though resolved in due course by Hon’ble Supreme Court, did not preclude the payment of tax from others rendering the same service. Disputes raised to merely avoid or delay tax cannot be said to have originated from ambiguity or flawed mechanism – be .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... service was brought within the tax net from 1st June 2007 and consideration for renting of property intended for residential use is exempted. The original authority found that appellant, having received consideration of ₹ 22,43,851/- from 2007-08 to 2011-12, is liable to tax of ₹ 15,35,575/- with interest thereon and imposed penalty under section 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... not been prayed for in the appeal and that there is also no justification for it. He draw attention to the decision in K Madhav Kamath Brother and Co v. The Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise [2015 (38) STR 249 (Kar.)] by which the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka, while disposing off the appeal filed by K Madhav Kamath Brother Co, observed: merely because of service tax was paid prior .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X