9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 794X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xtended period of limitation - Held that: - though the appellant took registration in March, 2008, they have not discharged service tax on all rental income received by them. They have chosen to pay service tax in respect of certain premises, excluding some other premises, on their own interpretation. We do not find any bonafide belief in such act - By applying the Provisions of Section 73(1) proviso, the demand can be issued for five years from the relevant date. As such, we find no infirmity in the present proceedings on limitation. Re-quantification of tax liability by applying Section 67(2) to consider the gross value inclusive of service tax - Held that: - the same can be done on verification of invoices etc. issued by the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice tax under the category of renting of immovable property service. They bonafidely believe that they are not a Mandap Keeper and as such not liable to tax under Mandap Keeper Service from 2005. Though, they were registered under renting of immovable property service, they did not pay service tax on the considerations received for renting out the art galleries for display of paintings etc. 3. They believed that such activity will not attract service tax. The Ld. Counsel contested the demand on limitation also. He submitted that when the Revenue called for details in December 2008, they have submitted all the particulars along with balance sheet etc. in January 2009. The SCN was issued on 18.10.2010, much belatedly; as such the proceed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on to hold that the appellant s activity is covered under tax entry of Mandap Keeper Service in terms of Section 65(105)(m) read with section 65(66) of Finance Act, 1994. We do not find that this acting is more appropriately classified under general category of renting of immovable property. 6. Regarding limitation, we note that though the appellant took registration in March, 2008, they have not discharged service tax on all rental income received by them. They have chosen to pay service tax in respect of certain premises, excluding some other premises, on their own interpretation. We do not find any bonafide belief in such act. Regarding delay in proceedings against the appellant, we note that the Revenue initiated inquiry in December ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
