AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Perused Petition.
Heard.
Considering the challenge to the constitutional validity of the provision of Section 65(105)(zzzz) as amended, arguable questions are raised, which needs consideration.
Rule.
Issue notice to the Attorney General of India, returnable on 6th August 2010. In the meantime, till the next date of hearing, Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 shall not take any coercive steps for the recovery of service tax from the Petitioner in respect of the renting of immovable property, alone. Coercive steps in relation to the recovery of service tax from Respondent Nos. 6 to 53 shall not be taken in the meanwhile. Since there is no challenge in this Petition to the second part of the provision, namely, "any other service in relation to such renting", hence, if there is any such service, the service provider would be liable to pay service tax on such service. We make it clear that in the event that the Petition is dismissed, the liability to pay service tax alongwith any other liability as a result of a demand made will solely be that of the Petitioner.
(Stand over to 6th August 2010)