2024 (6) TMI 250
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er the category of "Renting of Immovable Property Service" as under Section 65(105)(zzzz) of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. The facts in brief are that M/s Kandla Port Trust, is holding Service Tax Registration under the categories of "Port Service" and "Renting of Immovable and has been duly discharging its Service Tax liability under the said categories in accordance with law. During the course of Audit, the Department sought information from the Appellant for the period of F.Y. -2007-08 to F.Y. -2011-12 and the requisite information was duly furnished to the Department. The department issued a show causenotice dated 19.10.2012 to the Appellant, alleging that the Appellant has not paid Service Tax on the rent received from leasing of vacant l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ection 65 (105) (zzzz) of the Finance Act, 1994. Therefore, after removing the above two amounts related to rent from lease of vacant land and from renting of residential buildings, from total value of service, the amount of taxable service comes to Rs. 6,17,75,172/- which is related to renting of non- residential buildings. Therefore, after removing the above two amounts related to rent from lease of vacant land and from renting of residential buildings, from total value of service, the amount of taxable service comes to Rs. 6,17,75,172/- which is related to renting of non- residential buildings. Accordingly, the amount of Service Tax payable is Rs. 63,69,048/- and against this demand, the Appellant had already discharged Service Tax amoun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../- against the Service tax liability already discharged by the Appellant under the head of "Renting of Immovable Property". Learned Commissioner did not allow adjustment of the remaining demand amount on the ground that the Service Tax was paid under the category of "Port Service" instead of "Renting of Immovable Property Service". Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellant has preferred the present appeal before this Tribunal. 3. Shri Jigar Shah, learned Counsel appearing with Shri Amber Kumarawat, Advocate, at the outset submits that the details of service tax paid by the appellant were not considered by the learned Commissioner while passing the impugned order. He submits that in the light of service tax already discharged by ....
TaxTMI
TaxTMI