9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 1064X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y were providing taxable services under the category of Works Contract Services (WCS) for the period from April 2007-08 upto March 2012. On adjudication, the Adjudicating Authority has only confirmed the demand to the extent of Rs. 60,57,263/- under Works Contract Services and Rs. 3,61,023/- under Renting of Immovable Proper Services as against the total demand of Rs. 1,92,36,939/-. While the demand was upheld on merit, however, the adjudicatory has extended the benefit of composition scheme under Works Contract Service under Rule 2A of Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006. Learned Advocate for the appellant is contesting the demand on the following grounds: a) In so far as the demand for the period prior to 01.07.2007 is conce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the period prior to 01.07.2010. As far as the amount calculated by the appellant themselves in terms of amendment under the provision of the Finance Act, 2017 it needs to be cross checked. Further, he submits that the amount which he has already been paid prior to 01.07.2010 in a regular manner cannot be adjusted against the recalculated demand. 4. Heard both the sides and perused the records. 5. In so far as the period prior to 01.07.2010 is concerned, matter is no longer res-integra and demand will not sustain on this ground itself. Reliance is placed on various judgments cited by the appellant. For the period beyond 01.07.2010, it is on record that in terms of the amendment brought in Rule 2A retrospectively amended for the period b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are only contesting on penalty under Section 78. He has taken us through the various judicial pronouncements preceding 2012 when different views were prevailing as regards leviability of service tax on renting of immovable property. Attention was drawn to the judgment of Hon'ble High Court in the case of Home Solutions Retail India Ltd., Vs Union of India [2009 (4) TMI 14 - Delhi High Court]. 8. In respect of demand on renting of immovable property, many changes occurred in taxation of renting of immovable property during the relevant period. In many decisions including the Home Solutions Retail India Ltd., Vs Union of India decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court [2009 (4) TMI 14 - Delhi High Court], [2009 (237) ELT 209 (Del)], it is held as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rnment to tax "Renting of Immovable Property" as Delhi High Court had struck down levy of Service Tax "Renting of Immovable Property". Also, Department has accepted that to clarify the position, amendment was brought out by way of Retrospective Amendment. Further, the said Amendment was again challenged and was upheld by Larger Bench of Delhi High Court only 23.09.2011. In view of confusion and uncertainty in law, adverse Judgements on Renting and consequent Retrospective Amendment etc., "Extended Period of Limitation" cannot be invoked to demand Service Tax on "Renting of Immovable Property" and also the equivalent penalty can NOT be imposed under Section 78 of Finance Act, 1994, in instant case. Reliance is also placed on the judgment in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
