2017 (12) TMI 958

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....awal, Advocate & Sh. B.L. Narsimhan, Advocate for the appellant. Rep. by Shri Sanjay Jain, AR for the respondent. ORDER Per: B. Ravichandran These are two appeals on common dispute of appellant's liability to pay service tax under the category of "renting of immovable property" . The brief facts of the case are that the appellant owned various premises, which can be used for warehousin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed in the impugned orders. The Original Authority held that the appellants are liable to pay service tax. Apart from confirming the tax liability, he also imposed penalties under Sections 76 and 77 and in respect of one appeal under Section 78 also. 2. Ld. Counsels appearing for the appellant submitted on the following grounds:- (a) The agreement between appellant and the State Warehousing C....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rporation is not engaged in the activities of the business or commerce as they are a corporation created by a state Act and on that ground also, there is no service tax liability on the premises used by the Warehousing Corporation. 3. Ld. AR strongly opposed the contention of the appellant. He submitted that the manner of receipt of consideration cannot determine the tax liability of the appell....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s. This is not the case about the handing over of the property and receipt of consideration of such property. They continued to share the responsibilities in terms of the agreement. On careful perusal of the agreement, we are of the considered view that it is not the rent agreement. Both parties intended to be joint partnership agreement though certain clauses mentioned therein are clearly in cont....