TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (2) TMI 820
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y of "renting of immovable property service" in respect of property jointly owned by parents of the Appellant Firm? B. Whether the benefit of SSI Exemption under notification No. 06/225-ST dated 01.03.2005 can be denied to the co-owners of jointly owned property on the ground that aggregate value of service (rent arising from the said property is beyond threshold limit, regardless of the fact that rent received by each of the co-owners' was much lower than the threshold limit? 1. M/s Mahalaxmi Enterprise (hereinafter referred to as "the Appellant") is a Partnership Firm consisting of six Partners and is engaged in leasing out of immovable property i.e. cinema theatre. 2. All the Partners of the Appellant Firm join....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appellant submits that the department had erroneously issued the show cause notice to the appellant that is Partnership firm because rent amount was actually received by the partners of the co-owners individually and independently and not the appellant which is a partnership firm. He submitted that the show cause notice was issued on the basis that the agreement for this was entered in between the appellant and RM and not separately with each co-owner. It is his submission that agreement was entered into by the appellant merely because RM did not agree to enter into separate individual agreements with each co-owner. Hence an agreement was entered into by RM with appellant when the appellant was acting merely in the capacity of an agent for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of the Government of India cannot treat same transaction, differently. Green Palace v. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy 2018 (1) TMI 760 M/s. Rentworks India M/s. Rentworks India Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai-V 2016 (43) STR 634 (T) Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore v. Jawahar Mills Ltd. 2001 (132) ELT 0003 (SC) Shabina Abraham v. Collector of Central Excise and Customs 2015 (322) ELT 372 (SC) Demand of Service Tax to the extent confirmed in respect of charges payable for usage of plant and machinery, furniture and other assets I unsustainable. CST v. UFO Moviez India Ltd. 2022-VIL-7-SC-ST Quippo Energy Pvt. Ltd. v. CST - ST - Ahmedabad 2022 (12) TMI 1440-CESTAT AHM....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....56-CESTAT ALLAHABAD 3. On the other hand, Shri Tara Prakash Learned Deputy Commissioner AR appearing on behalf of the revenue reiterates the finding of the impugned order. He also placed reliance on the decision of Tribunal in the case of Gtail Corporation Vs. Commissioner (Appeals), Cus. and CGST Allahabad. 4. On careful consideration of the submission made by both the sides and perusal of record, we find that there is no dispute that irrespective of any agreement of RM with the present appellant the rent was paid by RM individually to the co-owners and TDS from the amount payable was deducted by RM. No amount was received by the appellant being a partnership. In this case the person who received the amount of rent directly from RM s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Appeal No. ST/10248/2013-DB and passed the following order:- 4. Heard both the sides and perused the records. We find that though in respect of one property, there are joint owners owner is independent in respect of ownership of respective shares, therefore, whatsoever consideration received by an individual, it is the subject matter of taxation in respect of that individual person either as per income tax or as per service tax. Rental income of other co-joint owner cannot be considered. Therefore, in our considered view receipt of rental income by every individual is only subject to liability of service tax. If the value is below thresh-hold exemption limit in case of any individual, the same will not be taxable being exe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Service Tax on the total rent be collected from one of the co-owners. Another argument of the Revenue is that since the property is indivisible and not earmarked against each of the co- owners, hence 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 ch....