M\/s. State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamilnadu Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise And GST Chennai North Commissionerate
Service Tax
2018 (3) TMI 551 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 16-1-2018
ST\/Misc.\/40910\/2017 and ST\/40953 to 40956\/2015 and ST\/40653 & 40654\/2016 – A\/40121-40126\/2018
Service Tax
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical)
\nShri G. Baskar and Ms. Sushma Harini, Advocate – for the Appellant
\nMs. P. Hemavathi, Commissioner (AR) – for the Respondent
\nORDER
\nPer: Bench
\nRevenue has filed a miscellaneous application seeking change of cause title from Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai to The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai North Commissionerate consequent upon the introduction of GST and the resultant change in the jurisdiction.
\n2. After hearing both sides, we allow the miscellaneous application for change of cause title and direct the Department to amen<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n and argued the matter. It was submitted that the appellant are incorporated as a company for setting up establishment and promotion of Industrial Estates within the State. Pursuant to its objects, appellants are engaged, inter alia, in the business of developing Industrial Estates and Housing Plots and acquires lands in accordance with procedure established under law. The Finance Bill, 2017 inserted a new Section 104 retrospectively exempting from service tax the services rendered by State Government Industrial Development Corporation. The said exemption granted would be eligible for the appellant and therefore the demand of service tax is unsustainable. It is submitted that for a subsequent period, the Commissioner after taking into consideration the amendment has dropped the demand of service tax except that of water charges. He therefore requested the matter may be remanded to the adjudicating authority for reconsideration of the issues on the basis of the retrospective amendment in<\/p>\n = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ith 21st day of September, 2016 (both days inclusive). (2) Refund shall be made of all such service tax which has been collected, but which would not have been so collected, had sub-section (1) been in force at all times. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Chapter, an application for claim of refund of service tax shall be made within a period of six months from the date on which the Finance Bill, 2017 receives the assent of the President.” = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n of immovable property = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s. State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamilnadu Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise And GST Chennai North CommissionerateService Tax2018 (3) TMI 551 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMICESTAT CHENNAI – ATDated:- 16-1-2018ST\/Misc.\/40910\/2017 and ST\/40953 to 40956\/2015 and ST\/40653 & 40654\/2016 – A\/40121-40126\/2018Service TaxMs. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Shri … Continue reading “M\/s. State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamilnadu Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise And GST Chennai North Commissionerate”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-10886","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10886","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=10886"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10886\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=10886"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=10886"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=10886"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n9. The ld. consultant has submitted that the lease in the plots in the present was given for 99 years and that the payment of service tax on the considerations received on the development charges etc. cannot sustain for the reason that they have been exempted retrospectively under section 104. The details of the appeals and the category of services as tabulated by the appellant is as follows:-
\nDETAILS OF APPEALS
\nSl. No
\nSCN and date
\nPeriod
\nCr ST Order No.
\nO-I-O No.
\nST Demand\/Rs.
\nCESTAT Appeal No.
\n1
\n181\/2011\/ 11.04.2011
\nOct 200<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\nChennai Port Trust – Amount Collected Development Charges \/ Plot Deposit.
\nAPRIL 2012 to JUNE 2012 (Sl. No. 4)
\nSl.
\nCategory of Service
\nRs.
\n1.
\nDevelopment Charges
\n2,92,39,097
\n2.
\nMaintenance Charges
\n95,68,315
\n3.
\nSub -lease Charges
\n2,13,860
\n4.
\nTrack Rent
\n8,63,301
\n5.
\nRent on building
\n55,562
\n6.
\nProcessing fees
\n20,827
\n
\nTotal
\n3,99,60,962
\nJULY 2012 to SEPTMEBER 2014 (Sl. Nos. 5 &6)
\nSl
\nCategory of service
\nJuly 2012 TO Sep 13
\nOct 2013 to Sep 14
\n1.
\n50% Water Supply Capital cost
\n18,99,828
\n–
\n2.
\n50% Water Supply Capital cost & Development Charges
\n58,41,68,966
\n28,54,98,668
\n3.
\nGross Service tax demanded
\n58,60,68,794
\n28,54,98,668
\n4.
\nS. Tax(33%) amount already remitted
\n19,34,02,702
\n9,42,14,650
\n5.
\nNet service tax payable
\n39,26,66,092
\n19,12,84,018
\n10. Taking into consideration the arguments put forward by the appellant before us, we are of the considered opinion that the matter requires to be remanded to the adjudicating autho<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n