2023 (4) TMI 1194 - AT - Service Tax

Classification of Services - mandap keeper service or not - appellant provides services in relation to birthday parties, kitty parties and marriage parties and has the ability to arrange parties for a group comprising between 700 to 800 people - period 2008-2009 to 2011-2012 - demand has been calculated on the basis of daily receipt and expenditure sheet for the disputed period even though the appellant had explained that all the entries did not relate to appellant company as some of the entry related to family members - misreading of statements - invocation of extended period of limitation - suppression of facts or not - HELD THAT - A mandap keeper is a person who allows temporary occupation of a mandap for a consideration for organizing any official, social or business function. Mandap means any immovable property and includes any furniture, fixtures, light fittings and floor covering let out for a consideration for organizing any official, social or business function. Any service is provided or to be provided to any person by a mandap keeper in relation to the use of mandap in any manner would be taxable under section 65(105)(m) of the Finance Act. A Circular dated 23.08.2007 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs clarifies that halls or rooms let out by hotels/restaurant for a consideration for organizing any official, social or business function would be covered under the definition of mandap and such hotels and restaurant would be covered within the scope of mandap keeper. Accordingly, service tax would be leviable on services provided by hotels and restaurant in relation to letting out of halls or rooms for organizing any official, social or business function. The defence taken by the appellant that it was operating hotels/ restaurant and serving food on per plate basis was not accepted by the Commissioner in view of the categorical statement of the manager (operations) and the director of the appellant, as also the records resumed by the investigating officers under the panchnama dated 24.12.2011 containing bills relating to mandap keeper service. The contention of the appellant that the documents which formed the basis of the order passed by the Commissioner were not relied upon by the department cannot also be accepted for the reason that Annexure A to the panchnama clearly contains the description of the said documents. The finding recorded by the Commissioner in this regard, therefore, does not suffer for any infirmity. It is clearly a case where the appellant had suppressed material facts on the department in order to evade payment of service tax and, therefore, the extended period of limitation was correctly invoked under the proviso to section 73(1) of the Finance Act. The imposition of the penalty and interest by the Commissioner in the impugned order also does not suffer from any illegality. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the appellant provided "mandap keeper" services as defined under the Finance Act, 1994.
2. Whether the demand for service tax, interest, and penalty was correctly confirmed.
3. Whether the extended period of limitation and imposition of penalty were justified.

Summary:

Issue 1: Provision of "Mandap Keeper" Services
The appellant contended that it was engaged in running restaurants and supplying bakery items, not providing "mandap keeper" services. The Department, however, received information indicating that the appellant was offering services for events like birthday parties, kitty parties, and marriage parties, which fall under "mandap keeper" services as defined under Section 65(67) of the Finance Act, 1994. The investigation revealed that the appellant let out halls and rooms for social, official, or business functions, charging significant amounts. The Commissioner concluded that the appellant's activities were within the scope of "mandap keeper" services, supported by statements from the appellant's manager and director, and documents seized during the investigation.

Issue 2: Demand for Service Tax, Interest, and Penalty
A show cause notice was issued demanding service tax of Rs. 91,04,431/- for the period 2008-2012, based on the appellant's "other income" amounting to Rs. 8,32,03,871/-. The Commissioner confirmed the demand with interest and penalty, rejecting the appellant's defense that it only booked tables for restaurant services and did not let out rooms for events. The Commissioner relied on evidence including statements from the appellant's manager and director, and bills relating to "mandap keeper" services.

Issue 3: Extended Period of Limitation and Penalty
The appellant argued against the invocation of the extended period of limitation and imposition of penalty. However, the Commissioner found that the appellant had suppressed material facts to evade service tax, justifying the extended period under the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act. The imposition of penalty and interest was upheld as legally valid.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the Commissioner's order that the appellant provided "mandap keeper" services, correctly confirmed the demand for service tax, interest, and penalty, and justified the invocation of the extended period of limitation and imposition of penalty.