9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 291X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on ble Supreme Court, being Interim Order dated 14.10.2011 in Civil Appeal No.8390 of 2011 and other appeals, in the case of Retailers Association of India Vs. Union of India Another [ 2011 (10) TMI 12 - SUPREME COURT ] . Penalties - HELD THAT:- In view of the provisions of Section 76, which provides for levy of penalty, where a person is liable to pay service tax, fails to pay such tax and further, Section 80 provides that where such failure is for reasonable cause, no penalty shall be imposed under Section 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act - there being reasonable cause for late payment of service tax, we set aside the penalty under Section 76 also. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - Service Tax Appeal No.54141 of 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e service in Section 65(105)(zzzz) providing explicitly that the activities of the renting itself is a taxable service and the tax is levied retrospectively w.e.f. 1.6.2007. The respondent/assessee contested the show cause notice on several grounds, inter alia, stating that they are Members of the Retailers Association of India (RAI), and some of their tenants, who were also the Members of the RAI, have approached the Hon ble Bombay High Court vide writ petition challenging the levy of service tax on renting of immovable property. It was also contended that part of the demand is time barred, as extended period of limitation is not invokable under the facts and circumstances. The assessee had also disputed the charge of tax in view of the st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7539049 [Deduction allowed only upto June,2010 in view of Explanation II inserted in Section 65(105)zzzzw.e.f.01.07.2010 (calculated on pro-rata basis). Gross Taxable Value 357139084 126989960 Less Property Tax Paid 6553423 2743522 Taxable value (cum duty upto December, 2009 350585662 124246438 Tax Payable 36776071 12797383 Less Payable by members of Retailers Association of India 4243009 1642455 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner is not justified in holding that the respondent is not liable to pay service tax amounting to ₹ 58,85, 465/- (₹ 42,43,009 + 16,42,455) as the Hon ble Supreme Court has shifted the liability on the service receivers/Members of the Retailers Association of India. The Hon ble Supreme Court has only granted stay to the service receivers by directing to pay 50% of the tax and to give solvent certificate with respect to the balance, but have not shifted the service tax liability under the Statute. The arrears of tax paid by the Members of the RAI, require to be adjusted against the service tax liability, as determined under Section 73. Thus, the ld. Commissioner has erred in reducing the service tax liability to the ext ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Section 80, the ld. Commissioner is fully justified in not imposing penalty under Section 78, taking notice of the litigation challenging the levy itself by the Retailers Association of India before the various High Courts as well as stay granted, of which the respondent is also a Member. Further, levy was quashed by the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the year 2009 and the levy was re-introduced with respective effect, which is again subjudice before the Hon ble Supreme Court. Further, the law declared by the Hon ble Supreme Court is binding on all subordinate courts within the territory of India, as provided under the Article 141 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly granted the relief to the responden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
