Shri A. Abdul Huq, Smt. Mymooma Hug, Kum. Muneera Hug And Shri Tariq Huq Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Chennai South
Service Tax
2018 (10) TMI 401 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 25-9-2018
ST\/41076 to 41078\/2017 And ST\/41081\/2017 – 42470-42473\/2018
Service Tax
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical)
\nFor the Appellants : Shri V. Ravindran, Advocate
\nFor the Respondent : Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy, ADC (AR)
\nORDER
\nPER BENCH
\nBrief facts are that on investigation conducted by the officers of SIR Wing of the Service Tax Commissionerate revealed that the property jointly owned by the appellants were let out to M\/s. S.C Shah and Company (P) Ltd. for monthly rental of Rs. 1,20,000\/- which attracted the levy of service tax under renting of immovable property. Since the appellants were not discharging service tax, show cause notices were issued for the period April 2008 to March 2012 and A<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n arted paying the service tax. The department has considered the four individuals to be association of persons and demanded service tax combining the rent received by each co-owner. Such demand on inherited property as association of persons is not tenable in law. He adverted to the reply to the show cause notice and submitted that the year wise break-up of rent received by each co-owner would be less than the threshold limit for the disputed period, the demand cannot sustain. The decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sarojben Khulsanchand & Ors. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Ahmedabad – 2017 (5) TMI 240 and the other decisions were relied by the ld. counsel to contend that the rent received by each co-owner has not crossed the threshold limit. He submitted that the issue is decided in favour of the assessees in the following cases:- = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n 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 t received by all coowners separately, is neither supported by law nor by laid down procedure. Thus, it is difficult to accept the proposition advanced by the 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 A. Abdul Huq, Smt. Mymooma Hug, Kum. Muneera Hug And Shri Tariq Huq Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Chennai SouthService Tax2018 (10) TMI 401 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMICESTAT CHENNAI – ATDated:- 25-9-2018ST\/41076 to 41078\/2017 And ST\/41081\/2017 – 42470-42473\/2018Service TaxMs. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) … Continue reading “Shri A. Abdul Huq, Smt. Mymooma Hug, Kum. Muneera Hug And Shri Tariq Huq Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Chennai South”<\/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-14349","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14349","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=14349"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14349\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=14349"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=14349"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=14349"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\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 <\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n xxxx xxxx <\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n Once the value of service provided by a service provider i<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n