2017 (1) TMI 168 - AT - Service Tax

Tribunal remands case for review pending Supreme Court appeal on tenant's service tax liability. Order set aside pending decision.

M/s Tirumala Estates Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Hyderabad-II

The Tribunal remanded the case back to the adjudicating authority for further review due to the pending Supreme Court appeal regarding the tenant's ... Renting of immovable property services - whether the appellant is liable to discharge the service tax liability on the rent collected from M/s Spencers’ Retail Ltd.? Held that: - I am of the view that the matter requires to be remanded to the adjudicating authority - The adjudicating authority shall also consider the issue of limitation put forward by the appellant - appeal allowed by way of remand. Issues:Challenge to service tax demand, imposition of penalty, waiver condition, non-payment of service tax on rent collected from a specific tenant, stay granted by Hon'ble Supreme Court, limitation argument, remand for further consideration.Service Tax Demand and Penalty:The appeal challenged the order confirming the service tax demand, interest, and penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the decision, offering a waiver of penalty if the entire service tax liability along with interest was paid by a specified date. The appellant had registered for paying service tax on rent received but did not pay tax on rent from a specific tenant, M/s Spencers' Retail Ltd., due to a stay granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in favor of the tenant. The appellant argued that this fact was not considered by the authorities. The department suggested remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority until the Supreme Court's decision on the tenant's liability.Stay by Supreme Court and Remand:The issue of whether M/s Spencers' Retail Ltd. is liable to pay service tax is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Considering this, the Tribunal decided to remand the case to the adjudicating authority for a fresh review after the Supreme Court's decision. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and directed the adjudicating authority to reconsider the matter post the Supreme Court's ruling. Additionally, the adjudicating authority was instructed to address the appellant's limitation argument during the review process.Conclusion:After hearing both sides and acknowledging the pending Supreme Court appeal on the tenant's liability for service tax, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to remand the case for further consideration. The impugned order was overturned, and the matter was sent back to the adjudicating authority for a fresh assessment post the Supreme Court's decision. The appeal was allowed for remand on the specified terms, emphasizing the need to await the Supreme Court's ruling before finalizing the service tax liability issue related to the specific tenant.