9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 442X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roperty Service with effect from 1.6.2007. The appellant commended payment of service tax immediately thereafter and filed the first ST-3 return for the half year ending 30.9.2007. He subsequently realized that he would be entitled to the benefit of threshold exemption granted vide Notification No.6/2005-ST dated 1.3.2005 which granted exemption for small service providers whose aggregate value did not exceed Rs. 8 lakh in any financial year. However, the Notification carried a stipulation in para 2(i) to the effect that the provider of taxable service has the option not to avail the exemption contained in this Notification and pay service tax on the taxable service provided by him and such option once exercised in a financial year shall no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2009. However, he subsequently realized that he would not be entitled to the benefit of threshold exemption under Notification No.6/2005 dated 1.3.2005 and filed revised return within the mandatory period of 60 days. He further submits a table indicating the rent amounts received for his two properties in Mysore for the period June 2007 to March 2008. He drew our attention to the fact that the total rent received by him for the two properties owned by him for the full financial year was below the threshold limit. As such, he prays that the demand for service tax may be set aside entirely. Rental Income for the period June 2007 to March 2008 Month Property A Property B Less kandayam Net Income June 2007 Rs.15,000/- + ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... im, he has made a sincere attempt to set right the record by filing revised ST-3 returns. It is also noted that the revised return while claiming the threshold benefit has declared 'nil' service tax to be paid for the said period. 6. On a careful consideration of the issue, we find that the option of exercising to avail the exemption was not originally exercised but was exercised by filing a revised return. This cannot come in the way of eligible benefit to the appellant. Further, it is seen that the total rent received by him for the two properties owned by him for the period June 2007 to March 2008 works out to less than Rs. 8,00,000/-. Under the circumstances, we have no hesitation in setting aside the impugned order and allowing the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
