Shri Syed Ahamed, Shri Khali Alaudeen, Smt. K. Fathima, Kum. S.A. Zainab, Co-owners, LKS Building, Trichy Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Trichy
Service Tax
2018 (10) TMI 400 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 25-9-2018
ST\/42605\/2014 – 42477\/2018
Service Tax
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical)
\nFor the Appellants : Shri G. Sivakumar, Consultant
\nFor the Respondent : Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy, ADC (AR)
\nORDER
\nPER BENCH
\nBrief facts are that the four appellants are equal co-owners of property which was rented out. They received rental income from the property and each co-owner received the rental income and TDS was deducted separately for each co-owner for income tax purposes. Department was of the view that since co-owners have an undivided share in the property, all the co-owners have to be treated as an association of person and the rental income has to be combined together. When <\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n scale exemption limit. He gave the break-up of all the four appellants which is as under:- = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n rs in the property against the total area owned and leased observed that the entire immovable property is given on lease, and there is no specific area that has been allotted to individual owner; thus since each of the co-owners not holding absolute ownership of any identifiable part in the property, hence not entitled to the benefit of said Notification. Further, the co-owners had only undivided interest in whole of the property and no divided interest in separate parts; accordingly, each coowner cannot lease their share of the property independently to the lessee, hence the services of renting of their property since indivisible in nature and hence to be considered as single service. The ld. AR further submitted that the assessment under the Income Tax separately has no effect on Service Tax matters in which the service of renting of property is indivisible and the Appellants are liable to pay Service Tax on the gross value realised in providing the service. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Revenue that all the coowners providing the service of renting of immovable property be considered as an association of persons and the Service Tax on the total rent be collected from one of the co-owners. Another argument of the Revenue is that since the property is indivisible and not earmarked against each of the co-owners, hence the Service Tax is leviable on the total rent received against the said property without apportioning against each of the co-owners in proportion to their share. We find fallacy in the said argument of the Revenue. Conceptually Service Tax is levied on the service provided, which is an intangible thing and hence it is not necessary to be identified with physical demarcation of the immovable property given on rent against individual coowners. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Shri Syed Ahamed, Shri Khali Alaudeen, Smt. K. Fathima, Kum. S.A. Zainab, Co-owners, LKS Building, Trichy Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise TrichyService Tax2018 (10) TMI 400 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMICESTAT CHENNAI – ATDated:- 25-9-2018ST\/42605\/2014 – 42477\/2018Service TaxMs. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) For the Appellants … Continue reading “Shri Syed Ahamed, Shri Khali Alaudeen, Smt. K. Fathima, Kum. S.A. Zainab, Co-owners, LKS Building, Trichy Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Trichy”<\/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-14348","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14348","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=14348"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14348\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=14348"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=14348"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=14348"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\nYear
\nValue of rent as per SCN
\nShare of each co-owner
\nThreshold exemption under SSI Notification during the relevant period
\n1
\n2
\n3
\n4
\n
\n
\n2 \/4
\n
\n2007 – 08
\n15,93,499
\n3,98,375
\n8,00,000
\n2008 – 09
\n21,94,929
\n5,48,732
\n10,00,000
\n2009 – 10
\n24,25,908
\n6,06,477
\n10,00,000
\n2010 – 11
\n27,04,404
\n6,76,101
\n10,00,000
\n2011 – 12
\n29,30,244
\n7,32,561
\n10,00,000
\n3. He thus contended that the department cannot consider all the four co-owners as an association of person so as to demand service tax by combining the rent by each co-owners. He submitted that the issue is decided in favour of the assessees in the following cases:-
\n a. Anita Singh & Ors. Vs. CGST, CC & CE, Dehradun – 2018 (6) TMI 810 – CESTAT, New Delhi.
\n b. Sh. Jasdeep Singh & Ors. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jalandhar – 201 (5) TMI 895 – CESTAT, Chandigarh
\n4. The ld. AR Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy supporte<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxx<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n Once the value of service provided by a service provider is ascertainable Service Tax is accordingly charged. This Tribunal in similar facts and circumstances in the cases of Deoram Vishrambhai Patel, Anil Saini & Oth<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n