2017 (11) TMI 1110 - AT - Service Tax

Convention services - whether or not the appellant provided convention services liable to service tax? - Held that - Admittedly, any person of a specialized group is also a part of general public for other purpose. In a general way, all persons, in given situation, are part of general public . However, when a person takes part in a activity with reference to his expertise, skill, etc. he is no more a part of general public and becomes a part of a select group or recognized group of public with certain common basis - we are not in agreement with the plea of the appellant that the conferences, seminars and workshops organized by the appellant are meant for or open to general public. The analysis and reasoning in the impugned order is more close to the statutory definition for the tax entry - demand upheld. Time limitation - Held that - the impugned order itself while examining the liability of the appellant for penalty under Section 78, held that there is no mens rea behind the non-payment of service tax on the part of the appellant. That being so, we find that the ingredients for invoking extended period for demand is absent in the present case - extended period and penalty cannot be imposed. Appeal allowed in part.

Issues:
1. Whether the appellant, an autonomous institute funded by the Government of India, is liable to pay service tax for conducting conferences and seminars.
2. Whether the activities of the appellant fall under the category of convention services as per the Finance Act, 1994.
3. Whether the penalty imposed under Section 76 and 77 of the Act is justified.
4. Whether the demand on limitation for the service tax liability is valid.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals-I), Indore, initiating proceedings to demand service tax from the appellant institute for conducting conferences, seminars, and workshops. The Original Authority initially dropped the proceedings, stating that the appellant was not liable to pay service tax as they were not a 'commercial concern.' However, on appeal by the Revenue, the Commissioner (Appeals) reversed the decision, holding the appellant liable for service tax of &8377; 2,37,813 and imposed penalties under Section 76 and 77 of the Act.

2. The main issue revolved around whether the appellant's activities qualified as convention services under Section 65(32) of the Act. The definition of 'convention' was crucial, as it excluded meetings primarily meant for amusement, entertainment, or recreation. The Commissioner (Appeals) determined that the conferences and seminars organized by the appellant were not open to the general public, as they involved scholars, students, and industry delegates with specific expertise. The impugned order rejected the Original Authority's view and upheld the tax liability based on a detailed analysis of the activities undertaken by the appellant, concluding that the services provided did fall under the scope of 'convention services.'

3. Regarding the penalties imposed under Section 76 and 77 of the Act, the appellant argued against the demand on limitation, asserting that there was no mens rea behind the non-payment of service tax. The Tribunal agreed that there was no intent to evade tax, leading to the decision to restrict the tax liability to the normal period of limitation. Consequently, the penalties were set aside, and the appeal was partly allowed based on these terms.

4. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the tax liability of the appellant for providing convention services, as per the statutory definition. However, the penalties were revoked due to the absence of mens rea, limiting the demand on the appellant to the normal period of limitation. The judgment was pronounced on 25.10.2017 by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT New Delhi.

← Previous Next →