2019 (6) TMI 16

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rvice tax along with interest and also for imposing penalties. After due process of law, the Original Authority vide Order-in-Original dated 14.03.2014 confirmed the demand of Rs. 24,23,798/- along with interest and also imposed penalties. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order dated 11.09.2014 upheld the same. Hence, this appeal. 2.1 On behalf of the appellant, Ld. Advocate Ms. K. Nancy appeared and argued the matter. She submitted that the appellant is the co-owner of the complex called "Lakkshmi Arcade" along with her husband Shri. M.S. Paramasivam. The property is situated in Survey Nos. T.S. No.65, bearing postal address of Plot No. A/10, Door No. 18, 11th Cross Main Door, Thillai Nagar, Tiruchirappalli - 620 018. T....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ant and her husband, the amount would be much below the threshold limit and the appellant would not be liable to pay service tax. It is argued by her that it is the settled position of law that the rent received by each co-owner has to be considered separately for the purpose of quantification of service tax. 3. Ld. AR Shri. B. Balamurugan appeared and argued the matter on behalf of the Department. He submitted that as per the land revenue records, the property is in the absolute ownership of the appellant only. Further, several lease agreements have been entered into with the tenants by the appellant only. In view of the above, it is very much clear that the liability to pay service tax on the rental income received from "Lakkshmi Arcade"....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of service tax raised on the appellant alone, therefore, cannot be sustained. 7. The Tribunal in the case of M/s. Sambhaji Pandurang Hulawale Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex., Pune-I reported in 2017 (6) G.S.T.L. 209 (Tri. - Mum.) has held that the rent received by the co-owners cannot be clubbed together for raising the demand of service tax. 8. Ld. Advocate for the appellant also contends that if the rent is shared between the appellant and her husband, they would come under the threshold limit. This aspect, however, requires verification. If the rent received by the appellant separately is below the threshold limit during the disputed period, then the appellant would not be liable to pay service tax. 9. From the above discussions, we hold th....