TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 394
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and obtained a loan for construction of premises, which were later leased out to M/s Electrix Motors Ltd. to M/s N' Cubate Logistics Warehousing Pvt. Ltd., M/s Luminous Tele Infra, M/s Luminous Power Technologies and M/s Luminous Water Technologies; the appellants claimed that the properties are registered in the respective names of the above four persons. Revenue entertained an opinion that these four persons entered into an "Association of Persons" and are liable to pay service tax on the rental income received, by them, from M/s Electrix Motors Ltd. to M/s N' Cubate Logistics Warehousing Pvt. Ltd. for the premises at Mubarikpur and from M/s Luminous Tele Infra, M/s Luminous Power Technologies and M/s Luminous Water Technologies. A show ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Section 65 (105) (zzzz) were amended by Section 76 of the Finance Act, 2010 retrospectively, Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Kuthuparamba Municipality - 2013 (30) STR 237 (Ker.) held that service tax cannot be recovered for the period 01.01.2011. He submits that learned Commissioner did not appreciate that the property is not by the AOP; no evidence has been brought to show the existence of the AOP; Luminous Power Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and Lectrix Motors Pvt. Ltd., vide Letters dated 06.09.2013 and 03.05.2012, addressed to Superintendent (Preventive) Central Excise, Chandigarh, informed that rental amount had been paid to the concerned persons and not to the AOP. 4. Learned Counsel further submits that Section 26 of the Incom....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... should also be given. 6. Learned Authorized Representative for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 7. Heard both sides and perused the record of the case. We find that the rent is being received by the individual co-owners separately. The premises rented out is not registered in the name of the alleged AOP; Revenue has not brought any evidence to indicate even the existence of the AOP. The only reliance placed by the Revenue appears to be the statement of Shri Chander Sharma, which only goes to prove that the individuals came together and approached the bank for a loan. It is not coming forth if the said AOP has been registered. The individual co-owners obtained central excise registration and start....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ority is as under. "6.2 On mere reading of the Order-in-Original, it is evident that the adjudicating officer has considered above named four persons as one person for determining tax liability and imposition of penalties without telling any legal basis for doing so. The appellants have contested the Order in Original mainly on the grounds that rented property belongs to four separate persons (all brothers) but the service tax has been demanded wrongly by the department from the appellants by clubbing the rent received by all the coowners and, therefore, the demand off tax is not maintainable on this ground alone. In support they have produced a City Survey Extract as evidence regarding ownership of the rented property which shows ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppellants were, therefore, not liable to pay service tax on the amounts received by them during these two years by virtue of Notification No. 6/2005-S.T., dated 1-3-2005. The appellant's case is also supported by the Tribunal's decision in the case of Dinesh K. Patwa v. CST, Ahmedabed which is referred in Para 3(ii) above. However, in the Financial Year 2009-10 and 2010-22, the receipt off rent by each appellant exceeded the statutory exemption limit of Rs. 10 lakhs and the appellants have paid service tax along with interest on their own before receipt of SCN. This fact is not disputed by the department also and no additional tax liability has been worked out for the said period in OIO. 6.4 Since the appellants were individually l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t be denied. Considering all these facts, I agree with the appellant's contention that this case was squarely covered under sub-section (3) of Section 73 which provided not to issue any notice under sub-section (1) of Section 73 if the service tax not levied or paid was paid along with interest by the person concerned before service of notice on him and informed the Central Excise Officer of such payment in writing. Further in Explanation 2 of the said sub section it is also clearly provided that no penalty under any of the provisions of the Act or the Rules made thereunder shall be imposed in respect of payment of service tax under this sub-section and interest thereon. Hence, in fact no SCN was required to be issued in this case for recov....