TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (11) TMI 440
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the activity of Renting of Immovable Property Services to commercial concerns but had not discharged the applicable service tax. The appellant accepted the liability for the period from June 2007 to August 2012 which was Rs. 43,68,851/-. They paid the amount of Rs. 47,37,557/- on 25/10/2012. It was observed that the appellant had not paid the entire interest liability on the same towards delayed payment under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994. A show-cause notice dt. 19/04/2013 was issued proposing to demand and appropriate the amount paid and proposing to impose penalty as per law. After considering the reply of the assessee, the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand; appropriated the amounts paid and imposed penalty under Section....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Solution Retail India Ltd. Vs. UOI [2010(19) STR 3. The said judgment was reversed by the Full Bench decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Home Solution Retails India Ltd. [2011(21) STR 109 (Delhi)]. Further appeals against the decision of the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court and a decision of the Bombay High Court taking a similar view are stated to be pending before the Apex Court. Therefore he has prayed that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of Section 80(2) and penalty should be dropped. He also relied upon the following decisions:- i. Gulmohar Park Mall Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Ahmedabad-I [2019(26) GSTL 94 (Tri. Ahmd.)] ii. Star India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Mumbai & Goa [2006(1) STR 73 (SC)] iii. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vice by giving retrospective effect to Section 65(105)(zzzz) of the Finance Act from 01/06/2007 itself. The said Finance Act received ascent of the Hon'ble President of India on 28/05/2012 and as per Section 80(2) of the Finance Act, payment of tax and interest was to be made within 6 months i.e. on or before 27/11/2012. Further I find that the service tax amount of Rs. 47,37,557/- for the period June 2007 to August, 2007 has been discharged by the appellant on 25/10/2012 prior to the stipulated date. Further I find that as per the show-cause notice, the demand for service tax was for an amount of Rs. 43,68,851/- and the appellant has paid Rs. 47,37,557/- i.e. Rs. 3,68,706/- is paid in excess and subsequently for the period July 2010 to Aug....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er for recovery of interest from the appellants." In view of the above we uphold the demand of interest in respect of the amounts paid by the appellant on amount of retrospective amendment. Therefore in view of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Gulmohar Park Mall Pvt. Ltd. cited supra and the Division Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Indiabulls Properties Pvt. Ltd., I am of the view that the appellants are liable to pay interest from June 2007 to June 20102. The appellant has already paid the interest from July 2010 to August, 2012 amounting to Rs. 2,84,844/- and now they are only liable to pay interest from June 2007 to June 2010. Since the appellant has already paid excess amount of service tax in the mo....