9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1109X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... being assessed separately under income 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. Penalty u/s 77 and 78 of FA - Held that:- 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 are set aside. 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 the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the Order of the Original Authority vide impugned Order dated 21.01.2015. Hence, this appeal. 3. Today when the matter came up for hearing, on behalf of the appellant Ld. Advocate Ms. S. Sridevi made oral and written submissions which can be broadly summarized as under : (i) The levy of service tax on Renting of Immovable Property Services is on individual persons and not on co-owners jointly to be treated as a single service provider. Further, it is submitted that appellants being co-owners of the property, any income received from such property has to be ascertained based upon the SSI Notification No. 06/2005 dated 01.03.2005. Since demarcation is not necessarily and compulsorily presen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... share and thereby denying the appellant their lawful right to be assessed as individual persons is not sustainable. Moreover, appellant has not suppressed any fact or wilfully mis-stated any facts. Only on the bona fide belief that they are liable for threshold exemption have they not paid service tax, that too only two out of four co-owners have applied for threshold exemption; the remaining co-owners i.e., Shri. K. Kumaraswamy and Shri. K.C.Nagaraj had already discharged their service tax liability. Hence, the demand of service tax is not sustainable. 4. On the other hand, Ld. AR Shri. B. Balamurugan appearing on behalf of the respondent supports the impugned Order. 5. Heard both sides and have gone through the facts of the matter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
