TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (2) TMI 820
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....espect 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 jointly owned a property situated at Palanpur and have appropriated shares....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at 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 the co-owners. 2.1 He submits that every individual has received the rent in their account and separa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 AHMEDABAD The present case involves question of interpretation of law; therefore, extended period of limitation not invokable. M/s. Utkal Builders Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 shall be treated a person liable to pay Service Tax. However, since the total receipt of rent by individual is less than the threshold limit as provided under exemption notification No. 6/2005/ST dated 01.03.2005 co-owners are not liable to pay Service Tax. This issue has been considered ti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 exempted under Notification No. 06/05-ST dated 01.03.2005. At the same time in case of any individual person if the thresh-hold limit exceed in financial year, the same will be liable for service tax. This issue has been considered by this Tribunal in the case of Sarojben Khushalchand (Supra) wherein the Tribunal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 contention of the Revenue and allowed the benefit of exemption Notification No. 6/2005-S.T., dt. 1-3-2005 as amended to in....