2015 (11) TMI 165 - AT - Service Tax

Demand of service tax - Whether the appellant is required to discharge the service tax liability on an amount collected by them for conducting aerobics and yoga classes and whether extended period can be invoked - 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. - appellant could have carried bonafide impression as ST-3 form which requires indicating the amount for exempted services was introduced on 01.03.2006 will also not carry their case any further inasmuch as they are covered under Health and Fitness Centre was never in doubt as they themselves registered under the same category and discharged the service tax liability on the amounts received by them for Gymnasium used by their members. It would be incorrect to say that they were not aware the services rendered by them would not fall under the category of Health and Fitness Service. - health and fitness centre is including a hotel or resort providing health and fitness service. Undoubtedly the appellant is a charitable institution and are establishment and they would fall under the category having all the facilities providing health and fitness Centre. - No merit in appeal - Decided against Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the appellant is required to discharge service tax liability on amounts collected for aerobics and yoga classes.
2. Whether the extended period can be invoked for the demand of service tax.

Analysis:
Issue 1:
The case involved a dispute regarding the service tax liability on amounts received for aerobics and yoga classes. The appellant argued that these services did not fall under the category of "Health and Fitness Centre." However, the tribunal rejected this claim based on precedent and held that aerobics and yoga classes are indeed covered under Health and Fitness services. The appellant's argument that the services were exempted and not taxable was dismissed, and the tribunal found in favor of the revenue authorities.

Issue 2:
Regarding the invocation of the extended period for the demand of service tax, the tribunal found that the appellant did not cooperate with the authorities and failed to produce necessary documents to determine the correct tax liability. The tribunal upheld the findings of the lower authorities, which stated that the appellant did not provide relevant information despite filing returns regularly. The tribunal also noted that the appellant's claim of having a bonafide impression due to changes in the ST-3 form was not valid, as they were registered under the Health and Fitness Centre category and were aware of their tax obligations. The tribunal concluded that the extended period was correctly invoked due to the lack of cooperation from the appellant.

In conclusion, the tribunal upheld the impugned order, confirming the demand for service tax, interest, and penalties on the appellant. The appeal was rejected, and the tribunal found no merit in the appellant's arguments, stating that the order was legal and correct, without any infirmity.