TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 930
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....als) has rejected the appeal of appellant and upheld the Order-in-Original. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that as per the allegation of the Department, the appellant had rendered taxable services under the category of "Renting of Immovable Property Services" under Section 65(105)(zzzz) of the Finance Act, 1994 but has not paid the service tax amounting to Rs. 17,27,312/- during the period from 01.06.2007 to 31.03.2012 and the same is recoverable from them under Section 73 of the Act. The case was made out on the basis of the internal audit conducted of the records of M/s Indian Acrylic Ltd. (IAL) wherein, it was noticed that M/s Indian Acrylic Ltd. had paid certain amount as rent to the appellant for the premises of House ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order is not sustainable in law and is liable to be set aside as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law. He further submits that it is not the case of the Department that the appellant is the owner of the property or has sublet the premises to their associate Companies namely M/s Indian Acrylic Ltd. and Steel Strips Wheels Ltd. He also submits that from the very beginning the stand of the appellant is that the amount had been received by them from their associate Companies as a share of rent for the residential premises taken on rent/lease from different landlords which had been used by the associate companies for the residential purposes of their common....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s that the properties involved in the present case are residential properties. 4.1 He further submits that the share of rent is not liable to service tax as held in the case of M/s Haldiram Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, CGST, GST Delhi East 2023 (71) G.S.T.L. 414 (Tri.-Del) and M/s Historic Resort Hotels (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex., Jaipur-II 2018 (9) G.S.T.L. 422 (Tri.-Del.). He also submits that the period involved in the present case is from 01.06.2007 to 31.03.2012 but the show cause notice was issued on 28.09.2012 invoking the extended period. He also submits that the levy of service tax or renting of immoveable property, which was to be used for commerce and business purpose was under doubt as the levy introduced ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e companies. We also find that the appellant has also produced on record, the copies of Water/Electricity Bills which clearly shows that the disputed properties are residential in nature and are taken on rent for the employees/directors/ associate companies who have shared the portion of the rent with the appellant. We find that the Tribunal in the case of M/s Haldiram Marketing Pvt. Ltd. and also in the case of M/s Historic Resort Hotels (Pvt.) Ltd. (Cited Supra) has held that sharing of rent is not liable to service tax and in the present case it is merely the sharing of the rent between the appellant and its associate entities and purely used for residential purposes and nothing has been brought by the Department on record that the dispu....