TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (8) TMI 109
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ategory of Renting of Immovable Property Services. 2. As the issue is common in all the appeals, therefore, all the appeals are taken up together for disposal by a common order. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are co-owner of property No. SCO No. 459-60, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh basement, Ground Floor, 1st Floor and 2nd Floor and have collectively received rent from M/s Gopal Sweets in respect of the rent deed. The appellants are receiving rent separately as per their share in the property and did not pay the Service Tax on the amount received as the amount of rent was within threshold limit as per the Notification No. 06/2005-ST dt. 01.03.2005, wherein it has been explained that if the threshold limit of service....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he respondent and his brothers are to be treated as association of persons or other vise and service tax liability on it arises, should be confined without the benefit of the notification No.6/2005-S.T. 7. It is undisputed that the property which has been rented out by the respondent and his brothers is jointly owned property; service tax liability arises on such renting of property. 8. On deeper perusal of impugned order, we find that the first appellate authority has considered all the angles in the dispute and came to the correct conclusion. The findings of first appellate authority is as under:- "6.2 On mere reading of the Order-in-Original, it is evident that the adjudicating officer has considered above named four perso....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l firms, it cannot be disputed that monthly rent was paid by the above named concerns to each appellant after deducting tax at their end. 6.3 From the show cause notice dated 19.10.2012, it is evident that the appellants had received rent as detailed below:- Sr. No Period Amount(Rs.) 1. 2007-08 (1-6-2007 to 31-03-2008) Rs. 29,21,048/- 2. 2008-09 Rs. 36,27,024/- 3. 2009-10 Rs. 46,72,744/- 4. 2010-11 Rs. 52,63,304/- 5. 2011-12 Rs. 44,28,360/- But as the rent was distributed equally among each of the appellant, it is evident that each of them received an amount lesser than Rs. 8 lakhs and 10 lakhs in the years 2007-08 and 2008-09 respectively which is below the exemption limit o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....akhs. The adjudicating authority has claimed in his order that the appellants paid service tax only after Department started investigation, but is not supported by any evidence or the facts on record. The SCN or the OIO do not talk of any audit objection or Preventive action or any inspection etc. on the basis of which not payment of service tax by the appellants was pointed out. Instead in the SCN, one statement of Shri Chandulal Vishrambhai Patel is only referred to which was recorded 22.02.2012 which is 8 days after the appellants had paid service tax along with interest on their own. Thus, the claim of the appellant that they had paid service tax for the years 2009-10 and 2010-11 on their own initiative and there was no suppression of f....