| The Tax Publishers 2019 TaxPub(ST) 0936 (Ker-HC) FINANCE ACT, 1994
Section 66
Where petitioner-lessees have signed an agreement making themselves liable to pay future charges, assessments, outgoings, etc., of the leased premises thereafter, petitioner could not contend that in terms of agreement of a lease with Gram Panchayat, which was the assessee to service tax, it has to be recovered from those who utilized the services.
|
Levy of service tax - Liability to tax - Lease, with Gram Panchayat agreement -
Case of petitioners, was that in terms of agreement of a lease with Gram Panchayat, which was the assessee to service tax, it has to be recovered from those who utilized the services. Admittedly, there was a delay of five or six years in making the demand. Held: Petitioner was aware of the terms and conditions of the lease agreement, including clause 2(2) indicated earlier, at least at the time of executing it. Petitioners have signed the Lease Deeds knowing the terms, with open eyes. Petitioners, therefore, cannot wriggle out of their liability. The argument of petitioners that since the Panchayat is the assessee to service tax, the service tax arrears cannot be recovered from the tenants, cannot stand the scrutiny of law. Petitioners-lessees have signed an agreement making themselves liable to pay future charges, assessments, outgoings, etc., of the leased premises. The petitioner was bound by it.
REFERRED : Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. Dewan Chand Ram Saran 2012 (26) S.T.R. 289 (SC) : 2012 TaxPub(ST) 761 (SC) and Max New York Life Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Insurance Ombudsman 2012 (28) S.T.R. 453 (Ker.) : 2012 TaxPub(ST) 510 (HC-Ker)
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour
A.Y. :
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|