9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 53X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lekha Beevi, C.S., Member (Judicial) Ms. A.S.K. Swetha, Advocate for the Appellant. Sh. M. Chandra Bose, Joint Commissioner (AR) for the Respondent. [Order per: Sulekha Beevi, C.S.] 1. The above appeal is filed against the penalty imposed under Section 77 and 78 of Finance Act, 1994. The appellant who is the owner of immovable properties like commercial complexes was receiving rent by letting out such immovable properties. The services of renting of immovable property service became taxable with effect from 01.06.2007. The appellants paid the service tax to the tune of ₹ 19,79,202/- after the issuance of show cause notice dated 19.09.2011. The interest as well as the balance service tax of ₹ 30,773/- was paid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n (2) which extended benefit to persons who paid the service tax along with interest within a period of 6 months on the date which the said Finance Bill receives assent of the President. That the appellant could not pay the entire liability along with interest within this time stipulated. It is argued by the Ld. Counsel that the benefit envisaged in Section 80 (1) would be available for the appellant. She submitted that sub-section (2) of Section 80 does not state that in case of failure to avail the benefit under sub-section (2) the benefit under Section 80 (1) would not apply. That the failure to pay service tax and interest was only on the bonafide belief that the services are not taxable and it was not due to any fraud, suppression of f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on (2) of Section 80 was introduced in order to give a chance to the assesses to clear their liabilities. The issue is still pending consideration of the Hon ble Apex Court. The decision of the Delhi High Court still holds in favour of the assessee. In this background of the case the appellants cannot be found fault with for not discharging their service tax liability. However, they have paid the entire tax liability along with interest. It is also submitted by the appellant Counsel that the tenants had not paid the service tax component to the appellants during the relevant period due to the litigations pending even before the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court. This Tribunal in the case of M/s Sree Kanya Combines Vs CCE, Visakhapatnam-II ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
