{"id":15573,"date":"2018-12-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2018-12-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2018-12-12T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2018-12-11T18:30:00","slug":"m-s-sri-ranojirao-endowment-trust-versus-commissioner-of-gst-central-excise-coimbatore","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/?p=15573","title":{"rendered":"M\/s. Sri Ranojirao Endowment Trust Versus Commissioner of GST &#038; Central Excise Coimbatore"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>M\/s. Sri Ranojirao Endowment Trust Versus Commissioner of GST &#038; Central Excise Coimbatore<br \/>Service Tax<br \/>2018 (12) TMI 949 &#8211; CESTAT CHENNAI &#8211; TMI<br \/>CESTAT CHENNAI &#8211; AT<br \/>Dated:- 12-12-2018<br \/>Appeal No. ST\/42044\/2018 &#8211; Final Order No. 43080\/2018<br \/>Service Tax<br \/>Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial)<br \/>\nShri K. Sankaranarayanan, Advocate for the Appellant<br \/>\nShri L. Nandakumar, AC (AR) for the Respondent<br \/>\nORDER<br \/>\nThe appellant is aggrieved by the interest and penalties which is upheld in the impugned order.<br \/>\n2. Brief facts are that the appellant, which is a religious trust, had leased out their property for rent. Department was of the view that they are liable to pay service tax on the rent received and show cause notice was issued p<\/p>\n<p align=\"center\">=  =  =  =  =  =  =  =<\/p>\n<p align=\"center\"><strong>Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong><BR>For full text:-<a href=\"https:\/\/www.taxtmi.com\/caselaws?id=372180\">Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n<p align=\"center\">=  =  =  =  =  =  =  =<\/p>\n<p>e appellant contested the matter on the belief that they have a good case on merits. After receiving the Order-in-Original, they have discharged the entire service tax and he pleaded that the penalties may be set aside. It is argued by the ld. Counsel that the delay in paying the service tax was only due to the bonafide belief that being an entity of the Government and being a religious trust, they are exempted from paying service tax. It is also submitted by him that there is no evidence to establish any fraud or willful suppression of facts on the part of the appellant. Therefore, the penalty imposed under Section 78 is without any factual or legal basis. He relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Punjai Pu<\/p>\n<p align=\"center\">=  =  =  =  =  =  =  =<\/p>\n<p align=\"center\"><strong>Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong><BR>For full text:-<a href=\"https:\/\/www.taxtmi.com\/caselaws?id=372180\">Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n<p align=\"center\">=  =  =  =  =  =  =  =<\/p>\n<p>e impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) that the appellant had not collected service tax from the tenants and that the matter was remanded by Commissioner (Appeals) to requantify the service tax liability giving cum-tax benefit. Taking note of this fact, it is established that the appellants were under the bonafide belief that they are not liable to pay service tax and were not collecting the service tax from the tenants. Further, there is no evidence to establish that they had suppressed facts with intention to evade payment of service tax. Taking these facts into consideration, I am of the view that the penalty imposed under section 78 cannot sustain and requires to be set aside. The original authority has imposed penalty of<\/p>\n<p align=\"center\">=  =  =  =  =  =  =  =<\/p>\n<p align=\"center\"><strong>Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong><BR>For full text:-<a href=\"https:\/\/www.taxtmi.com\/caselaws?id=372180\">Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n<p align=\"center\">=  =  =  =  =  =  =  =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>M\/s. Sri Ranojirao Endowment Trust Versus Commissioner of GST &#038; Central Excise CoimbatoreService Tax2018 (12) TMI 949 &#8211; CESTAT CHENNAI &#8211; TMICESTAT CHENNAI &#8211; ATDated:- 12-12-2018Appeal No. ST\/42044\/2018 &#8211; Final Order No. 43080\/2018Service TaxMs. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) Shri K. Sankaranarayanan, Advocate for the Appellant Shri L. Nandakumar, AC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/?p=15573\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading<span class=\"screen-reader-text\"> &#8220;M\/s. Sri Ranojirao Endowment Trust Versus Commissioner of GST &#038; Central Excise Coimbatore&#8221;<\/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-15573","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15573","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=15573"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15573\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=15573"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=15573"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=15573"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}