9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (10) TMI 439 - AT - Service TaxLevy of Service tax - Club or Association Services or not - contribution paid by the members to the Appellant i.e. Co-operative Housing Society towards maintenance and common expenses - HELD THAT - The issue involved in the instant appeal is no more res integra and is very much covered by the appellant own case TAHNEE HEIGHTS CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CGST, MUMBAI SOUTH 2018 (10) TMI 901 - CESTAT MUMBAI where it was held that the purpose for which the appellant's society was incorporated, clearly demonstrate that it is not at all provides any service to its members and the share of contribution is to meet various purposes. The case of the appellant is not confirming to the requirement of 'service', as per the definition contained in Section 65B(44) of the Act. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
Whether the contribution paid by members to a Cooperative Housing Society towards maintenance and common expenses is liable for Service Tax under Club or Association Services? Analysis: 1. The appeal was filed against an order passed by the Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals-I), Mumbai, regarding the liability of a Cooperative Housing Society to pay Service Tax on contributions from members for maintenance and common expenses. 2. The Appellant, a Cooperative Housing Society registered under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, collected contributions from members for building maintenance and common expenses as per the society's bye-laws. The Appellant paid service tax under protest for the period April 2017, which was rejected by the Adjudicating Authority and the 1st Appellate Authority. 3. The Appellant argued that the contributions were not for any defined service under the Finance Act, 1994, and cited a previous Tribunal decision in their favor. The Revenue, however, supported the findings of the impugned order. 4. The Tribunal examined relevant case laws and provisions to determine the nature of the relationship between the society and its members. It noted that the principle of mutuality applies when there is no distinction between the service provider and the service receiver. The Tribunal referred to previous decisions supporting the non-taxability of services provided by clubs or associations to their members. 5. The Tribunal analyzed the status of the Appellant as a body corporate under the Act of 1960 and the society's bye-laws regarding contributions. It concluded that the society, being legally accepted as a body corporate, did not provide services to its members, and the contributions were for specific purposes outlined in the bye-laws. 6. Relying on the previous Tribunal decision in a similar case, the Tribunal held that the activities of the Appellant should not be considered taxable services for service tax payment. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the Appellant. 7. The Tribunal pronounced the order in open court, allowing the appeal filed by the Appellant with consequential relief as per law. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key arguments, legal principles, and conclusions drawn by the Tribunal in determining the liability of a Cooperative Housing Society for Service Tax on contributions from its members.
|
