2020 (2) TMI 1615 - HC - Service Tax

Recovery of service tax dues - Club and association services - doctrine of mutuality - service rendered during the period between 01.04.2015 to 31.03.2016 - Section 73(2) of the Finance Act, 1994 - HELD THAT - The issue, as to whether the petitioner has liable to pay the service tax or not is now covered by a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of STATE OF WEST BENGAL ORS. VERSUS CALCUTTA CLUB LIMITED AND CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE ORS. VERSUS M/S. RANCHI CLUB LTD. 2019 (10) TMI 160 - SUPREME COURT . For earlier periods between 01.10.2008 and 31.01.2014 and between 01.02.2014 and 31.03.2015, an order has been passed by this Court in M/S OOTACAMUND CLUB VERSUS THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, O/O. THE COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE, CUSTOMS SERVICE TAX 2020 (1) TMI 198 - MADRAS HIGH COURT following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal and others Vs Calcutta Club Ltd and Chief Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax and Another Vs Ranchi Club Ltd. - it was held that from 2005 onwards, the Finance Act of 1994 does not purport to levy service tax on members clubs in the incorporated form. Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to impugned Order dated 13.07.2017 confirming service tax demand, imposition of penalties under Sections 76 and 77(2) of the Finance Act, 1994.

Analysis:
The petitioner contested the Order dated 13.07.2017, where the respondent confirmed a service tax demand of &8377; 14,02,815/- for services rendered between 01.04.2015 to 31.03.2016 under Section 73(2) of the Finance Act, 1994. Additionally, penalties of &8377; 1,40,281/- under Section 76 and &8377; 10,000/- under Section 77(2) of the Act were imposed by the Assistant Commissioner. The primary issue was whether the petitioner was liable to pay the service tax. The Court referred to a recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal Vs. Calcutta Club Limited, 2019 SCC Online SC 1291, stating that the matter was already settled by the aforementioned judgment. Furthermore, the Court noted that for earlier periods, specific orders had been issued in the petitioner's own case following the Supreme Court's decision.

The judgment highlighted the decisions in the State of West Bengal case and the petitioner's own case in W.P.No.8246 of 2016, aligning with the Supreme Court's ruling. Consequently, the Writ Petition was allowed based on the Supreme Court's decision and the Court's previous ruling in the petitioner's case. No costs were awarded, and the connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed. The judgment provided a clear resolution to the issues raised regarding the service tax demand and penalties imposed, emphasizing the binding nature of the Supreme Court's decision and the Court's previous orders in similar cases.