TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (11) TMI 1155
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ement in favour of the wife Smt. R.Srimathy and his sons Shri R.Babu and R.Subramanian. It appears that the mother and the two sons gave Power of Attorney to the father for renting out the property. Thus, all the four joint owners rented out the property to various tenants. Department took the view that the total monthly rent so received would be liable to service tax under renting of immovable property for the period 1.6.2007 to 31.03.2012. The original authority vide an order dt. 31.10.2004 has confirmed the demand of tax liability of Rs. 10,55,358/- with interest thereon and also imposed penalties on the four co-owners under Section 77 & 78 of the Act. In appeal, the commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order dt. 14.01.2015 upheld the or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d Vs Luxmi Chaurasia 2017 (49) STR 541 (Tri-All.) 4) CIT Vs Indira Balkrishna 1960 (4) TMI 7 - SC 5) CIT Vs Deghamwala Estates 1979 (3) TMI 30 - Madras High Court. 3. On the other hand, Ld. A.R Shri B. Balamurugan supports the impugned order. 4. Heard both sides. We find merit in the contention of the Ld. Advocate that SCN not having been issued to joint owners, nonetheless proceedings have been confirmed against four joint owners. Hence we have no hesitation in holding that orders of the lower authorities have gone beyond the scope of the SCN and even on these technical grounds, the impugned order cannot be sustained. We further find that the Ld. Advocate is correct in her assertion that the matter is already settle....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....provided under the General Clauses Act, is not relevant and inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, inasmuch as merely because several persons own the immovable property jointly, they cannot be treated as body of individuals or association of persons, when each co-owner receive the rent proportionate to their share in the immovable property, having separate PAN No. and subjected to TDS and income tax assessment separately. In support of their argument on the scope and meaning of association of persons they have referred to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Indira Balkrishna (supra) followed in Deghamwala Estates (supra) case where under similar circumstances, the co-owners who received ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce the Service Tax is leviable on the total rent received against the said property without apportioning against each of the co-owners in proportion to their share. We find fallacy in the said argument of the Revenue. Conceptually Service Tax is levied on the service provided, which is an intangible thing and hence it is not necessary to be identified with physical demarcation of the immovable property given on rent against individual co-owners, Once the value of service provided by a service provider is ascertainable Service Tax is accordingly charged. This Tribunal in similar facts and circumstances in the cases of Deoram Vishrambhai Patel, Anil Saini & Others and Luxmi Chaurasia (supra) after considering the issues raised, rejected the ....