TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 1387
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....med the demand of Rs. 6,94,139/- under Section 73 of the Act along with interest and also imposed penalty of Rs. 5,30,604 and penalty of Rs. 17,353 under Section 76 and Rs. 20,000 under Section 77 of the Act. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant are engaged in providing taxable services falling under the category of "Renting of Immovable Property Services" under Section 65 (105) (zzzz) of the Finance Act, 1994. As per the Department, the appellant have contravened the provisions of Section 68, 69 and 70 of the Act, read with Rule 4, 6 & 7 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 as they neither applied for registration nor discharged their service tax liability for the said service provided. During the course of audit of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that all these aspects have been duly considered and addressed by the adjudicating authority. He also submits that the co-owner of the property could not be treated as association of the persons or body of the individual for assessment under the taxing statutes. He also submits that Co-ownership of the property by the co-owner does not result into the formation of an Association of Persons with the co-owners. Each of the coowner in the present case is receiving the rental income from the property in capacity of an individual and not as a member of an Association of Persons. He further submits that this issue is no more res integra and the Tribunal in various cases has settled the issue in favour of the assessee. In support of his submission....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... separately in respect of payments made to them. 7. Further, we find that this issue was recently considered by this Bench in the case of M/s Bansal & Co Owners vide Final Order No. 61485-61486/2025 wherein, it has been held in the following paras: 5. 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. It is not coming forth if the said AOP has been registered. Under the circumstances, it is not understood as to how Revenue attempted to tax the AOP. Interestingly, it appears that the adjudicating a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ling 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 co-owners 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 that the said property was purchased in 2003 and is owned jointly by all the four co-owners. Further, the lease agreements with M/s. Max New York Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Oriental Bank of Commerce, Axis Bank, Kotak Mahindra Bank and HDFC Sta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 liable to pay service tax and eligible for the exemption under general exemption Notification 6/2005-S.T., dated 1-3-2005 during the period 2007-08 and 2008-09, no service tax was payable during the said period. Hence, the question of pena....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 recovery of service tax and imposition of penalty and even when it has been issued, no penalty under Section 76 or 78 is imposable in this case for the period 2009-10 and 2010-11." 9. It can be seen from the above reproduced finding....