2016 (3) TMI 162 - AT - Service Tax

Pandal and Shamiana Contract Service under Section 65(105)(zzw) of the Finance Act, 1994. - Taxability of services like furniture, fixtures, light, light fittings, floor covering and other articles for decoration - Held that Section 65(105)(zzw) ibid defined that the taxable service is any service provided to a client, by a pandal or shamiana contractor in relation to a pandal or shamiana in any manner and also includes the services, if any, rendered as a caterer. As the appellant was providing electrical lighting and decoration, etc., so it is clearly covered within the scope of Section 77(b) ibid as Pandal and Shamiana Contractor . The said fittings and decoration were provided to prepare a place for social/official functions organised by Tourism Department of Government of Rajasthan as mentioned in the impugned order and therefore the service rendered by the appellant clearly fell within the definition under Section 65(105)(zzw) ibid. It is also seen that the appellant actually charged service tax amounting to ₹ 9,62,787/-, therefore, its claim that it had a bona fide belief regarding non-taxability of service and there was no suppression of facts on its part, are totally untenable. - Decided against the appellant

Summary

Issues:
Service tax demand confirmation under Section 65(105)(zzw) of the Finance Act, 1994 for providing "Pandal and Shamiana Contract Service."

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the Order-in-Original (Review) confirming a service tax demand under Section 65(105)(zzw) of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant argued that they only supplied furniture, fixtures, and other decoration articles, not falling under the scope of the mentioned section. They cited a judgment by the Authority for Advance Rulings to support their claim and asserted no wilful misstatement or suppression of facts. However, during the hearing, they did not press on the valuation issue. The Tribunal considered the definitions under Section 65(77b) and 65(77a) of the Act, which clearly encompassed the activities of a "Pandal and Shamiana Contractor." The appellant admitted to providing electrical lighting and decoration for official functions, falling within the scope of the defined service. The Tribunal noted the unambiguous statutory provisions and rejected the appellant's claim of non-taxability belief, especially as they had actually charged service tax previously. The Tribunal emphasized that the Authority for Advance Rulings' judgment cited by the appellant was not binding and affirmed the applicability of the service tax in this case.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it, upholding the confirmation of the service tax demand under Section 65(105)(zzw) of the Finance Act, 1994 for providing "Pandal and Shamiana Contract Service."