9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1485X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out. The rent is received by individual as per their respective share in the property. The case of the department is that the joint owners of the one property should be considered as association of person (AOP) and renting share of two or more persons shall be clubbed together. Accordingly, the values of the consideration were exceeding the thresh-hold limit of exemption of 4 lakhs and 8 lakhs as the case may be and the same is liable for service tax. 2. Sh. N.K. Tiwari Ld. Consultant & Sh. Abhishek Doshi Ld. CA appeared for the appellant. They submit that even though the property is owned by two or more persons each person is individually separate owner in the share of the property, therefore, the rental income of one person cannot be clubbed with other joint owner. The relationship between the joint owners is not of any commercial concern such as association of person, therefore, the proposal of clubbing of rental income by the department is not legal and correct. He submits that the such type of arrangement has also been established in income tax matter that the joint owner of the property do not fall under the category of association of person, accordingly, the individual inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... persons'. In the present case, the show cause notices were issued in many cases to one person among the Joint owners and in other cases to all the persons who had jointly owned the immovable property provided on rent. Needless to mention, the Service Tax Registration of individual assessees for collection of Service Tax is PAN based, hence, collection of Service Tax from one of the co-owners, against his individual Registration for the total rent received by all co-owners separately, is neither supported by law nor by laid down procedure. Thus, it is difficult to accept the proposition advanced by the Revenue that all the co-owners providing the service of renting of immovable property be considered as an association of persons and the Service Tax on the total rent be collected from one of the co-owners. Another argument of the Revenue is that since the property is indivisible and not earmarked against each of the co-owners, hence the Service Tax is leviable on the total rent received against the said property without apportioning against each of the co-owners in proportion to their share. We find fallacy in the said argument of the Revenue. Conceptually Service Tax is levied on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve produced a City Survey Extract as evidence regarding ownership of the rented property which shows that the said property was purchased in 2003 and is owned jointly by all the four co-owners. Further, the lease agreements with M/s. Max New York Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Oriental Bank of Commerce, Axis Bank, Kotak Mahindra Bank and HDFC Standard Life Insurance Ltd. are also entered into by the appellants in their individual capacity, as per SCN also, all four co-owners have obtained separate Registration Certificate on 10-4-2012 and all the four co-owners individually paid their Service tax liability along with interest on 14-2-2012. Thus, the ownership of the Property and providing of taxable renting of immovable Property by the four appellants in this case is in their individual capacity and, therefore, their tax liability should have been determined by considering their individual rental receipts and not collective one. From the various lease agreements made with above mentioned Commercial firms, it cannot be disputed that monthly rent was paid by the above named concerns to each appellant after deducting tax at their end. 6.3 From the show cause notice dated 19-10-2012, it i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the SCN, one statement of Shri Chandulal Vishrambhai Patel is only referred to which was recorded on 22-2-2012 which is 8 days after the appellants had paid service tax along with interest on their own. Thus, the claim of the appellant that they had paid service tax for the years 2009-10 and 2010-11 on their own initiative and there was no suppression of facts etc. on their part with any intention to evade service tax cannot be denied. Considering all these facts, I agree with the appellant's contention that this case was squarely covered under sub-section (3) of Section 73 which provided not to issue any notice under sub-section (1) of Section 73 if the service tax not levied or paid was paid along with interest by the person concerned before service of notice on him and informed the Central Excise Officer of such payment in writing. Further in Explanation 2 of the said sub section it is also clearly provided that no penalty under any of the provisions of the Act or the Rules made thereunder shall be imposed in respect of payment of service tax under this sub-section and interest thereon. Hence, in fact no SCN was required to be issued in this case for recovery of service tax a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fficer has considered above named four persons as one person for determining tax liability and imposition of penalties without telling any legal basis for doing so. The appellants have contested the Order in Original mainly on the grounds that rented property belongs to four separate persons (all brothers) but the service tax has been demanded wrongly by the department from the appellants by clubbing the rent received by all the co-owners and, therefore, the demand off tax is not maintainable on this ground alone. In support they have produced a City survey Extract as evidence regarding ownership of the rented property which shows that the said property was purchased in 2003 and is owned jointly by all the four co-owners. Further, the lease agreements with M/s Max New York Life Insurance co. Ltd., Oriental bank of Commerce, Axis Bank, Kotak Mahindra Bank and HDFC Standar Life Insurance Ltd. are also entered into by the appellants in their individual capacity, as per SCN also, all four co-owners have obtained separate Registration Certificate on 10.04.2012 and all the four co-owners individually paid their service tax liability along with interest on 14.02.2012. Thus, the ownership ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made by the appellants on their own when they realized that their taxable value for renting of property had exceeded the exemption limit of Rs. 10 lakhs. The adjudicating authority has claimed in his order that the appellants paid service tax only after Department started investigation, but is not supported by any evidence or the facts on record. The SCN or the OIO do not talk of any audit objection or Preventive action or any inspection etc. on the basis of which not payment of service tax by the appellants was pointed out. Instead in the SCN, one statement of Shri Chandulal Vishrambhai Patel is only referred to which was recorded on 22-2-2012 which is 8 days after the appellants had paid service tax along with interest on their own. Thus, the claim of the appellant that they had paid service tax for the years 2009-10 and 2010-11 on their own initiative and there was no suppression of facts etc. on their part with any intention of evade service tax cannot be denied. Considering all these facts, I agree with the appellant's contention that this case was squarely covered under sub-section (3) of Section 73 which provided not to issue any notice under sub-section (1) of Section 73 if ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
