2011 (4) TMI 191 - HC - Service Tax

Penalty - Mandap Keeper - The premises are given for social functions, public functions, cultural functions and political functions and the basis of which, they cannot be said to be Mandap Keepers and they should not be construed as Mandap Keepers - Tribunal on careful consideration of the relevant provision has come to the conclusion that both the assessees fall under the category of Mandap Keepers - Decided in favour of the assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of law regarding service tax liability for public authorities providing premises for various functions.
2. Imposition of penalty by revenue challenged due to bona fide dispute over service tax liability.

Issue 1: Interpretation of Law on Service Tax Liability
The case involved two public authorities, one providing premises for cultural and political events, and the other for various functions. The revenue imposed service tax on both for being Mandap Keepers. The Commissioner of Appeals upheld the tax, leading to an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the activities did not qualify as social functions exempt from service tax but categorized them as Mandap Keepers, ruling that service tax was due. However, as the authorities had a genuine belief that their activities were not taxable, the demand was limited to the normal period due to a bona fide dispute. The Tribunal set aside the penalty, stating that the authorities did not deliberately avoid paying service tax. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that the authorities' cause was reasonable, and no penalty was warranted.

Issue 2: Imposition of Penalty
The High Court noted that the premises were used for social, public, cultural, and political functions, challenging the classification of the authorities as Mandap Keepers. Despite this, the Tribunal determined that they fell under that category. As the authorities had a genuine belief that they were not liable for service tax under this category, the Tribunal deemed the penalty imposition unjustified. The High Court concurred, stating that there was no deliberate evasion of service tax and that the Tribunal's decision to set aside the penalty was well-founded. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the revenue's appeal, affirming the Tribunal's ruling and emphasizing the absence of merit in challenging the penalty's removal.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues of interpretation of law concerning service tax liability for public authorities and the imposition of penalties in cases of bona fide disputes over tax obligations.