9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1109X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es. The lease agreement stipulated that payment of rent should be made to each co-owner equally and separately in the name of the lessor in accordance with their share. 2. The Department took the view that although the property is jointly owned by the co-owners, there is no specific separation or demarcation of the property amongst the co-owners; that service is provided by the co-owners in respect of the property jointly; that only when the co-owners joined as an association or as a team, it appears that the service provider would come into existence. Hence, co-owner would collectively constitute a single entity providing taxable service. Consequently, there arises a service tax liability of Rs. 14,93,577/- on the value of Rs. 1,34,35,136 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Nasik Vs. Deoram Vishrambhai Patel - 2015 (40) S.T.R. 1146 (Tri. - Mum.); * Anil Saini & Ors. Vs. C.C.E., Chandigarh - 2017 T.M.I. 101 CESTAT Chandigarh; * C.C.E., Allahabad Vs. Luxmi Chaurasia - 2017 (2) T.M.I. 105 CESTAT Allahabad; * K.D. Chowdhary Vs. C.S.T. - 2013 (32) S.T.R. 441 (Tri. - Ahmd.); * Manju Champaklal Bafna Vs. C.S.T. - 2013 (31) S.T.R. 511 (Tri. - Ahmd.); * Minaxi Ben Thakur Vs. C.S.T. - 2013 (31) S.T.R. 329 (Tri. - Ahmd.); * Bhavna R. Shah Vs. C.S.T. - 2013 (30) S.T.R. 462 (Tri. - Ahmd.). (iii) Appellant submits that separate collection of rent is the relevant criteria for ascertaining status of service provider and they have been assessed as individuals right from the beginning and it has never been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come tax law. The service tax liability will require to be quantified individually for the co-owners provided they exceed the threshold limit for taxability under service tax. So ordered. 7. In the interests of justice, therefore, the matter is remanded to the Original Authority who will re-work the service tax liability after taking into account the value of taxable service relative to each of the co-owners and after giving the benefit of threshold limit for taxation to each of them. 8. Since the very edifice of the demand made jointly on the co-owners has crumbled, there will not be any penalty imposable on these appellants. Hence, the penalties imposed under Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 in these impugned Orders are set a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
