Shri C. Selvam Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Tirunelveli
Service Tax
2018 (11) TMI 747 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 1-10-2018
Appeal No. ST\/40586\/2015 – Final Order No. 42525\/2018
Service Tax
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical)
\nMs. S. Sridevi, Advocate for the Appellant
\nShri B. Balamurugan, AC (AR) for the Respondent
\nORDER
\nPer Bench
\nThe appellant is aggrieved by the demand of service tax, interest and penalties confirmed by the adjudicating authority and upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order.
\n2. On behalf of the appellant, ld. counsel Ms. S. Sridevi submitted that the appellant is not contesting the<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n 4 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. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n also seen from the records that the appellant has not been given the abatement for the property tax under Notification No.24\/2007-ST dated 22.5.2007. The adjudicating authority shall also consider this plea of the appellant if sufficient proof is adduced by the appellant. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Shri C. Selvam Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise TirunelveliService Tax2018 (11) TMI 747 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMICESTAT CHENNAI – ATDated:- 1-10-2018Appeal No. ST\/40586\/2015 – Final Order No. 42525\/2018Service TaxMs. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Ms. S. Sridevi, Advocate for the Appellant Shri B. Balamurugan, AC … Continue reading “Shri C. Selvam Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Tirunelveli”<\/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-15020","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15020","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=15020"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15020\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=15020"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=15020"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=15020"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n3. 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.
\n4. Heard both sides.
\n5. On perusal of the impugned order as well as the submissions made by the appellant, it is brought out that the appel<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n5.2 The ld. counsel has prayed for waiver of penalties. On perusal of records, it is seen 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. We also find that in the case of Krishi Up<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n