9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 327X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cers of Central Excise, Dehradun (Department) and it was found that appellant was not paying service tax on the said services. Accordingly, a show cause notice (SCN) dated 15.04.2014 was issued to the appellant for demanding and recovering Service Tax with interest and penalty. The adjudicating authority vide the impugned order confirmed the demand of Rs. 16,44,367/- under the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994(Act) along with interest. Penalty of Rs 16,44,367/- was also imposed under Section 78 of the Act and also a penalty of Rs 10,000/- was imposed under Section 77 of the Act. The appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who rejected their appeal by upholding the order of the adjudicating authority. Hence, the present appeal has been filed. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the property was purchased by partners in their name separately. The rent was received separately by all the partners, for which the tenant deducted TDS and the rent agreement was jointly signed but having separate mention of their portion in the property. 3.1 He further submitted that for the subsequent period, similar demand was raised which was also contes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Pillai and Ors. [Manu/SC/0217/1976] * Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. A. K. Tandon & Ors. [Manu/DE/0214/1991] * Western Agencies Private Limited vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai [2011 (22) STR 305 (Tri.-LB) 4.2 Ld. AR further submitted that in the Finance Act, 1994 the terms 'Person' was not defined prior to 01.07.2012 with effect from 01.07.2012 vide Section 65B(37) of the Act, the term 'Person' was defined to the firm. In support of his submission, he relied upon the decision of the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Cadila Healthcare Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Ahmedabad reported as 2021 (50) GSTL 205 (Tri.-Ahmd). 4.3 As regards the demand raised for post negative list period, the learned AR submitted that the appellant being an un-registered assessee, as per Section 73 (6) (c), the relevant date for calculation of the limitation period is from the date on which the service tax is to be paid under the act or the rules made thereunder. As per Rule 6 of Service Tax Rules, 1994, the service tax shall be paid to the credit of the Central Government (i) by the 6th day of the month, if the duty is deposited electronically through internet banking ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s 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 is evident that the appellants had re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 and imposition of penalty and even ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... overnment, (ix) a local authority, or (x) every artificial juridical person, not falling within any of the preceding sub-clauses;" 7.1 It has been submitted before us that the term 'Person' was defined to include any company or association or body of individuals. The appellant was registered as a firm, and therefore post 01.07.2012, the firm was liable to pay service tax on the taxable service being provided by them. We are in agreement that the term Firm was defined for the first time with effect from 01.07.2012. It was also submitted by the Ld AR that the demand for the post negative list period is within normal period of limitation. In this context, he submitted that for the period 1.7.2012 to 31.03.2013, the due date for payment of service tax was 05/06.04.2013. Consequently, the last date for issuing a show cause notice is 05/06.10.2014 whereas the said notice was issued on 15.04.2014. We are in agreement that the said demand is within the normal time period. However, the Ld. Counsel has also submitted before us that the firm did not carry on any business since 2009-10 onwards, and that no TDS was deducted in the name of the appellant firm. It was also submitted that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
