9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 508X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it will continue to be a valid levy. As a creation of the law, this Tribunal has to follow the law and cannot go beyond its four corners. Further, levy of service tax on renting of immovable property was upheld by five different High Courts. Conclusion - i) Unless the levy of service tax on renting of immovable property service is held to be ultra vires by any constitutional court, it will continue to be a valid levy. ii) The levy of service tax on the renting of immovable property service by the appellant needs to be upheld. Consequently, the appropriate amount of interest has to be paid. The Commissioner (Appeals) has already set aside the penalty under section 78 in the impugned order but upheld the penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ow cause notice dated 21.09.2011 SCN was issued to the appellant proposing to recover the service tax under section 73 (1) of the Finance Act with interest and penalty. 5. The appellant did not submit any written reply in defence nor did it seek personal hearing. However, personal hearings were held on 27.09.2012, 27.12.2012 and 24.01.2013. Nobody appeared for the personal hearings. The Assistant Commissioner passed the order in original dated 28.02.2013 confirming the demand of service tax as proposed under section 73(1). He also confirmed the demand of interest under section 75 of the Finance Act and further imposed an equal amount of penalty under section 78. 6. Aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt and Allahabad High Court in the following case laws: (i) Home solution Retails (India) Ltd. vs. Union of India 2011 (24)STR 129 (Del.) (ii) Retailers Association of India (Rai) vs. Union of India 2011 (23) STR 561 (Bom.) (iii) Shubh Timb Steels Limited vs. Union of India 2010 (20) STR 737 (P&H) (iv) Utkal Builders Ltd. vs. Union of India 2011(22) STR 257 (Ori.) (v) N.K. Bhasin vs. Union of India 2017(6) GSTL 370 (All.) 10. There is no dispute that the service of renting of immovable property was rendered by the appellant. In view of the above, the appeal may be dismissed and the impugned order may be upheld. 11. We have considered the submissions and perused the records. 12. The fact that the appellant had rented its prope ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
