2019 (5) TMI 875 - HC - Service Tax

High Court allows appeal on service tax for renting property with pre-deposit requirement

The High Court allowed the petitioner to appeal the order-in-original regarding service tax on Renting of Immovable Property, provided a pre-deposit is ... Maintainability of petition - Alternative remedy of appeal - Levy of Service Tax - Renting of Immovable Property Service - issue in dispute for long time - HELD THAT:- The litigation in regard to this issue has a chequered history - On 05.04.2018 the matter was listed for final hearing before the Supreme Court and has been referred to a Bench of nine judges in the case of MINERAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ETC. VERSUS M/S STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA & ORS [2011 (3) TMI 1554 - SUPREME COURT]. The period of assessment in the present case is 01.06.2007 to 30.06.2008 and 01.07.2008 to 31.01.2015. It is also an admitted position that as regards the total arrears of ₹ 38,14,620, computed as on 19.10.2010 a sum of ₹ 24,35,280/- has been collected by the service tax department by way of attachment of rents paid by the 3rd respondent, the lessee in the property in question. In the light of the discussion and bearing in mind the position that a substantial portion of the disputed demand has already been collected by the Revenue, I am inclined to permit the petitioner to file an appeal challenging the order-in-original before the Commissioner of Service Tax(Appeals) - petition dismissed. Issues Involved:Challenge to order in OIO SL.No.03/2017-ADC regarding service tax on Renting of Immovable Property.Analysis:The writ petitioner challenged the order dated 05.01.2017 related to the levy of service tax on Renting of Immovable Property. Despite being hit by laches, the petitioner argued that the issue has a history, citing a Full Bench decision of the Delhi High Court and subsequent Supreme Court proceedings. The period of assessment in the present case was from 01.06.2007 to 31.01.2015. A significant amount of the disputed demand had already been collected by the Revenue through attachment of rents paid by the lessee. The petitioner, a farmer with income solely from agriculture, rented the property for commercial and residential purposes.The High Court noted the history of the issue and the amount already collected by the Revenue. Considering these factors, the Court allowed the petitioner to file an appeal challenging the order-in-original before the Commissioner of Service Tax(Appeals) within two weeks along with the required pre-deposit. The Court also directed that the attachment of rents from the property would continue, subject to any orders passed by the Appellate Authority. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly, with no costs awarded.This judgment showcases the Court's consideration of the petitioner's circumstances, the history of the legal issue, and the amount already collected by the Revenue. The Court's decision to allow the petitioner to appeal while maintaining the attachment of rents reflects a balanced approach to the matter.