2019 (2) TMI 684 - AT - Service Tax

Levy of service tax - amounts received by them for syma stalls rent collected and stall registered if collected - period 2005-2006 to 2007-2008 - Held that - Similar issue came up before the Tribunal in the case of M/s Karnataka Exhibition Authority 2018 (7) TMI 1672 - CESTAT BANGALORE , where it was held that there is no service rendered by the appellants to the exhibitor, in fact, the successful tenderer will give it to individual shops, the service receiver as well as the appellants are concerned, is the tenderer but not the individual exhibitors of the shops - demand set aside - appeal allowed - decided n favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Whether the appellant is liable for service tax on amounts received for stall rents and registrations during the period 2005-2008.

Analysis:
1. The appellant set up various stalls and collected rents, leading to a demand for service tax, interest, and penalties. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demands, which were upheld by the First Appellate Authority, prompting this appeal.

2. The appellant argued that they are a semi-Government organization, registered with authorities, and regularly pay service tax. They contended that the amounts collected were for arranging stalls for business exhibitors, not for evasion of tax. The events conducted were for promoting business, and rents were collected only for supplying materials on a use-and-return basis.

3. The Departmental Representative supported the lower authorities' findings, emphasizing the suppression of value in the income and expenditure account.

4. The central issue was whether the appellant should be held liable for service tax on amounts received for syma stalls rent and stall registrations during 2005-2008.

5. Upon review, it was found that the show cause notice alleged suppression of value, but the appellant claimed the amounts were for supplying materials to exhibitors, not for hiding income. The Tribunal cited a similar case where service tax was not applicable as the service was provided to the tenderer, not individual exhibitors.

6. Consequently, the Tribunal held the impugned order unsustainable, setting it aside and allowing the appeal with any consequential reliefs.

This detailed analysis of the judgment outlines the key arguments presented by the appellant, the authorities' positions, and the Tribunal's reasoning leading to the decision to set aside the order and allow the appeal.