2014 (10) TMI 647 - AT - Service Tax

Mandap Keeper Service - Renting of immovable property - Extended period of limitation - Held that - Appellant is doing restaurant business, it cannot be said that they had valid ground not to pay tax. Prima facie, we find that extended period also is invokable. - entire amount ordered to be deposited - stay denied. As regards renting of immovable property, extended period could not have been invoked since the levy has been regularized by retrospective amendment. Therefore, prima facie, the appellant has made out a case for waiver of pre-deposit of service tax demanded on renting of immovable property service - Stay granted.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Liability of service tax on 'Mandap Keeper' services from a retrospective date.
2. Non-discharge of service tax on certain amounts received towards rent.
3. Applicability of abatement towards food and beverages in service tax calculation.
4. Consideration of evidence regarding charges for hall usage.
5. Reliance on a previous case for decision-making.
6. Invocation of extended period for tax liability determination.
7. Waiver of pre-deposit of service tax on 'renting of immovable property' services.

Analysis:

1. The appellant, registered as a service provider under 'Mandap Keeper' category, was found to have not discharged service tax for the period before December 2007, amounting to Rs. 6,32,801 for 2004-05 to 2007-08. The issue was whether the service tax liability could be imposed retrospectively, considering the appellant's VAT payments on the total amount received. The department demanded service tax, which was upheld due to lack of evidence showing separate charges for hall usage. The abatement towards food and beverages was allowed, and service tax was demanded for the rest.

2. Apart from the 'Mandap Keeper' service tax issue, an amount of Rs. 31,513 towards renting of immovable property was also in question. The appellant argued that they only provided food and did not charge extra for hall rental. The department contended that the hall was provided along with food, and without evidence of separate charges, service tax was demanded after allowing abatement. The appellant failed to provide details on different prices for food and beverages in the restaurant and hall.

3. The tribunal considered the appellant's reliance on a previous case but found it inapplicable to the current scenario. The decision in the previous case concerning convention services did not align with the present circumstances, leading to a separate judgment in this case.

4. Regarding the limitation period for tax liability determination, the tribunal found that the appellant, engaged in a restaurant business, did not have a valid ground for non-payment of tax. The extended period was deemed applicable, considering the nature of the business operations.

5. In the context of renting immovable property services, the tribunal noted that the extended period could not be invoked due to a retrospective amendment regularizing the levy. Consequently, the appellant was granted a waiver of pre-deposit for the service tax demanded on 'renting of immovable property service.'

6. The final order directed the appellant to deposit the entire service tax demand with interest for 'Mandap Keeping Service' within a specified period, with a waiver of pre-deposit for the remaining balance and a stay against recovery granted for a set duration, subject to compliance.