2018 (11) TMI 747 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI – Penalty – renting of immovable property service – waiver of penalty sought on the ground that during the period the issue was under confusion – Held that:- The issue whether renting of immovable property is subject to levy of service tax was under litigation during the disputed period and there were litigations filed by the tenants pending before the various High Courts. The issue is still pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court as per the decisions cited by ld. counsel for the appellant – the penalties imposed cannot sustain and requires to be set aside.
–
The matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority to reconsider the issues – appeal allowed in part and part matter on remand. – Appeal No. ST/40586/2015 – Final Order No. 42525/2018 – Dated:- 1-10-2018 – Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Ms. S. Sridevi, Advocate for the Appellant Shri B. Balamurugan, AC (AR) for the Respond
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
enalties may be waived invoking Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 for the reason that during the said period the issue whether renting of immovable property was subject to levy of service tax was under much confusion and there were litigations pending before the Hon ble Delhi High Court. The issue is still pending before the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. UTV News Ltd. reported in 2018 (13) GSTL 3 (SC) as well as Mineral Area Development Authority and Others Vs. SAIL – (2011) 4 SCC 450. 3. The ld. AR Shri B. Balamurugan supported the findings in the impugned order. He submitted that there are no grounds to interfere in the impugned order. 4. Heard both sides. 5. On perusal of the impugned order as well as the submissions made by the appellant, it is brought out that the appellant had put forward cum-tax benefit and the same has not been considered by the authorities below stating that the appellant has not furnished evidence. That the appellant is ready to fu
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
of service tax was under litigation during the disputed period and there were litigations filed by the tenants pending before the various High Courts. The issue is still pending before the Hon ble Supreme Court as per the decisions cited by ld. counsel for the appellant. We also find that in the case of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Vs. Commissioner -2018 (13) GSTL J97 (SC), the matter is still pending before the Hon ble Supreme Court. For these reasons, we find that the penalties imposed cannot sustain and requires to be set aside. Thus the penalties imposed under sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act,1994 are set aside and impugned order is modified to the extent of setting aside the penalties imposed. The matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority to reconsider the issues discussed above. 6. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and partly remanded in the above terms. (Dictated and pronounced in open court) – Case laws – Decisions – Judgements – Orders – Tax Management Ind
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =