TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 723
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....19 dated 20.12.2019 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in which he upheld the Order in Original dated 28.3.2019 passed by the Assistant Commissioner. M/s. Rajasthan Housing Board Division II [Appellant 2] filed Service Tax Appeal 51082 of 2020 to assail the Order in Appeal No. 910 (CRM)ST/JDR/2019 dated 20.12.2019 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in which he upheld the Order in Original dated 22.8.2019 passed by the Assistant Commissioner. 2. The Rajasthan Housing Board is Government of Rajasthan body and it operates in various places across Rajasthan and hence is registered separately with the jurisdictional service tax authorities. Division IV and Division II of the Board, being aggrieved by the impugned orders, filed these two a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e records. Submissions of learned counsel for the appellant 4. Learned counsel for the appellant made the following submissions: (i) The appellant is a board created by the Government of Rajasthan to create affordable housing within the State. It developed various housing schemes for low and medium income groups and in one such scheme, during the relevant period, the appellant recovered 'lease amounts' from the selected applicants which was meant for developing roads, parks and other amenities and accounted the amounts so collected as 'Liability towards Government of Rajasthan'. (ii) The lease amounts were collected by the appellant as per the mandate of the Government of Rajasthan and the entire amount so collected ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the Act or Rules with an intent to evade payment of service tax. Therefore, none of the elements necessary to invoke extended period of limitation under the proviso to section 73(1) were present. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the invocation of extended period of limitation only on the ground that the appellant was working under self-assessment and had the audit not pointed out, none of the issues would have come to light. Neither the fact that the appellant was operating under self-assessment nor that alleged non-payments were discovered by audit are grounds on which extended period of limitation could be invoked as per the proviso to section 73(1). (x) The 'lease money' was collected by the appellant on behalf of the Gover....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... first two issues on merits first. As far as the amounts collected as 'Lease Money' from the allottees is concerned, it is not a consideration for renting of any immovable property as is evident from the records. The so called Lease Money is what the State Government mandated the appellant to collect and pass it on the appellant collected the amounts and transferred the entire amount to the Government of Rajasthan. It is not a consideration received by the appellant for rendering any service to the allottees. The appellant also did not receive any amounts from the State of Rajasthan for collecting the amounts. Thus, neither was there any service nor was any consideration received. Treating the amounts of 'Lease Money' collected by the appel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n noticed by him. Audit has done what the Range officer was empowered to but did not do. At any rate, the fact audit detected the wrong availment of CENVAT cannot be the ground to invoke extended period of limitation. 9. Penalty was imposed under sections 77 &78 against Appellant 1 whose appeal involved only the first two issues. Since the we found both the issues in favour of Appellant 1, the penalties also cannot be sustained. 10. Penalty was imposed only under section 78 against Appellant 2 whose appeal also involved the third issue which we held against the Revenue on the question of limitation. The elements necessary to invoke extended period of limitation under the proviso to section 73(1) and the elements necessary to impose pe....