9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 963X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mber (Judicial) Shri Kartikeya Narain, Advocate for Appellant Shri Sandeep Kumar Singh, Deputy Commissioner (AR), for Respondent ORDER Per: Anil Choudhary The appellant-a proprietorship concern is engaged in providing services under the category of Renting of Immovable Property located at Noida. Although the appellant is a proprietorship firm situated at Noida, they came under the charging section. Accordingly, the appellant took registration with the Service Tax Department at Noida and started depositing the tax, as collected. Levy of service tax under the category of Renting of Immovable Property had been challenged by several assessee s before the Hon ble High Court and finally Hon ble High Court of Delhi in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted the ST-3 return for the period September, 2007 to March, 2011 along with ₹ 18,000/- towards late fee. 3. Subsequently, the show cause notice dated 06th September, 2012 was issued alleging that although the appellant got registered in November, 2008 but they did not file any returns from the date of registration. Further, service tax of ₹ 26,62,583/- was calculated as payable for the period September, 2007 to March, 2011. The SCN further proposed to appropriate the said demand from the amount of ₹ 32,10,487/- already deposited. Further, there were proposal to charge interest of ₹ 6,12,883/- with appropriation of deposited amount and further proposal to impose penalty under Section 76, 77 78 of the Act. The sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itation, as the appellant had deposited the taxes on being so pointed out on 07.02.2011 which was much more than the proposed demand of ₹ 26.62 lakhs. Further, the appellant also deposited ST-3 return on 06th July, 2011. The show cause notice was issued after more than 12 months, is bad for invocation of extended period of limitation. Further, in view of the chargeability under the dispute, in view of law laid down, relied upon the ruling of Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of M/s Home Solution Retail India Ltd. Vs Union of India (supra) there was reasonable cause for not depositing tax and rightly held so by the Additional Commissioner. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) have erred by imposition of penalty under Section 76, 77 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
