Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2015 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (9) TMI 789 - AT - Service TaxHealth and Fitness services - activity of aerobics and yoga classes - Extended period of limitation - Held that - the argument that the amounts collected for rendering aerobics and yoga classes are not covered under Health and Fitness services is incorrect and is to be rejected and this Bench in the case of Osho International Foundation Neo Sannyas Foundation 2015 (6) TMI 441 - CESTAT MUMBAI has held that meditation course and yoga classes would fall under Health and Fitness services - Decided against the assessee. Extended period of limitation - Held that - appellant had not co-operated with the lower authorities and did not produce any documents in order to arrive at the correct service tax liability. The appellant had been claiming that they had indicated the amount in their audited balance sheet which were produced before the lower authorities is also incorrect as they are not in a position to produce the acknowledgement copy of the letters vide which the balance sheets were handed over to the department. - Demand confirmed - Decided against the assessee.
Issues:
- Discharge of service tax liability for aerobics and yoga classes - Invocation of extended period for demand of service tax Analysis: Issue 1: Discharge of service tax liability for aerobics and yoga classes The appellant failed to indicate the service tax liability on amounts received for aerobics and yoga classes in their returns. The Revenue authorities issued show-cause notices demanding service tax, interest, and penalties. The appellant claimed that these services did not fall under "Health and Fitness Centre" category. However, the Tribunal rejected this claim, citing a previous judgment. The appellant's argument of being a charitable institution was also dismissed based on the definition of "health and fitness service." The Tribunal upheld the demands, interest, and penalties, concluding that the appellant had no case on merits. Issue 2: Invocation of extended period for demand of service tax The appellant did not cooperate with the authorities by providing necessary documents to determine the correct service tax liability. The first appellate authority found that the balance sheets submitted by the appellant were not relevant to the period in question. The appellant's argument that the introduction of ST-3 form in 2006 affected their understanding was rejected, as they were aware of their classification under "Health and Fitness Centre." The Tribunal upheld the invocation of the extended period, emphasizing the appellant's lack of cooperation and failure to inform authorities about the services provided. The impugned order was deemed correct and legal, with no infirmity found, leading to the rejection of the appeal. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the demands, interest, and penalties against the appellant for failing to discharge the service tax liability on amounts received for aerobics and yoga classes. Additionally, the invocation of the extended period for demand of service tax was deemed valid due to the appellant's lack of cooperation and awareness of their service classification. The impugned order was upheld, and the appeal was rejected.
|