M/s. Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Chennai
Service Tax
2019 (2) TMI 680 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 23-1-2019
Appeal Nos. ST/42069 to 42071/2015 – Final Order Nos. 40147-40149/2019
Service Tax
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical)
Ms. Radhika Chandrasekar, Advocate for the Appellant
Shri B. Balamurugan, AC (AR) for the Respondent
ORDER
Per Bench
The issue involved in all these appeals being the same, they were heard together and are disposed by this common order.
2. The appellants are engaged in letting out their property situated at various places for commercial purposes. During the course of audit of accounts, it was noticed that they did not pay appropriate service tax on the rent received from the property situated at Delhi and Mumbai for the different periods. Show cause notice was issued proposing to demand service tax along with i
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
by Finance Act, 2010 seeking to impose service tax on leasing letting, licensing, renting of immovable property with retrospective effect from 1.6.2007. The appellant had made predeposit of 50% of the taxes as per the directions of the Hon'ble High Court i9n the writ petition. Subsequently the writ petitions were dismissed on 20.9.2014. The department has issued three show cause notices for three different periods i.e. from June 2009 to June 2011. The appellant has paid the service tax and the dispute remains only to the variance in the quantification of the demand. The statement given by the appellant showing details of payment has not been reconciled with the demand raised in the notice. The entire amount paid by the appellant has not been taken into consideration. Further, the appellant has paid property tax collected and the said amount has not been deducted for ascertaining the tax liability as well as the rent received in advance from tenants had been included in the total taxabl
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
rty tax benefit as well as the rent received in advance from tenants is given to the appellant. She therefore prayed that the penalties may be waived.
5. The ld. AR Shri B. Balamurugan supported the findings in the impugned order. He argued that the appellant had not furnished documents to show that they had paid property tax. Without furnishing documents before the authorities below, they cannot now contend that they have paid property tax and the same is to be deducted from the total taxable value. It is also argued by him that the appellant had not discharged service tax within prescribed time as under section 80(2) of Act ibid and therefore the penalties levied are correct and proper.
6. Heard both sides.
7. The appellant submits that the authorities have not taken into consideration the property tax paid by the appellant while arriving at the total taxable value. Indeed, if taxes are paid by the appellant, the same has to be considered while arriving at the total taxable value.
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =