Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in directing pre-deposit and refusing unconditional stay of recovery when the dispute on service tax liability over lease premium appeared prima facie covered in favour of the assessee.
Analysis: The dispute turned on the scope of taxable service under section 65(105)(zzzz) of the Finance Act, 1994, namely whether service tax could be levied on the rent alone or also on a one-time lease premium. The Tribunal's own final view treated service tax as leviable on the quantum of lease rent and not on the lease premium. On that basis, and in view of the prima facie case in favour of the assessee, the demand for security of Rs. 20 crores was not justified at the interim stage.
Conclusion: The Tribunal was not justified in insisting on pre-deposit and in declining unconditional stay; waiver of the precondition and stay of recovery were warranted.