9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 291X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. It appeared to Revenue that the respondent being liable to service tax is required to obtain registration under Section 69 and further required to pay service tax amounting to Rs. 4,53,94,367/- including the cess, and further, they failed to file half yearly returns and accordingly, demanded vide show cause notice dated 29.06.2010 for the period 01.06.2007 to 31.12.2009, with further proposal to impose penalty under Sections 76, 77 and 78 of the Act. Vide another show cause notice dated 17.02.2011, the service tax was demanded for the subsequent period i.e. 1.1.2010 to 31.12.2010 on the same grounds, with further proposal to impose penalty under Section 76 and 77 of the Act. Addendum dated 17.02.2011 was issued in respect to the first sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Union of India, whereby Interim Order dated 4.4.2011, the Apex Court directed the Delhi High Court to hear and dispose of the matter expeditiously. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court by its judgement dated 23.09.2011 upheld the levy of service tax with respect to renting of immovable property for commercial purposes under Section 65(105)(zzzz) read with Section 66 of the Finance Act, as amended by Finance Act, 2010 and further also overruled their earlier judgement in First Home Solutions case. 4. The ld. Commissioner computed the tax liability as follows:- Particulars June, 2007 to December, 2009 for SCN No.22973 SCN No.4406 Jan. 2010 to December, 2010 Rental Income as per SCN 38,80,81,347 13,45,29,009 Less-Rental Charges received ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... venue is in appeal on the ground that the Commissioner (Appeals) is not justified in dropping the demand amounting to Rs. 58,85,465/- as well as non-imposition of penalty. 7. Reiterating the grounds of appeal, the ld. Authorised Representative for Revenue urges that the ld. Commissioner is not justified in holding that the respondent is not liable to pay service tax amounting to Rs. 58,85, 465/- (Rs. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Finance Act, 2012, provides an additional window for deposit of service tax along with interest in respect of the service tax for renting of immovable property, within the prescribed period. Thus, on harmonious reading of sub-section (1) and (2) 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 dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
