2007 (3) TMI 35 - AT - Service Tax

Mandap Keeper Services Alleged that appellant is providing the service of Mandap Keeper and accordingly demand were made alongwith penalty Held that appellant not providing service of Mandap Keeper and set aside demand and penalty

Summary

Issues:
Demand of service tax confirmed for providing services as Mandap keeper; Applicability of service tax on services provided to own members; Interpretation of the term 'client' under the Finance Act; Application of mutuality principle in service tax cases.

Analysis:
The appellants challenged the demand of service tax imposed on them for allegedly providing services as a Mandap keeper. They argued that as a registered entity under the Societies Registration Act, the services provided to their members should not be considered as services to a client. They contended that the definition of Mandap keeper under Section 65 of the Finance Act includes services provided to a client in relation to the use of Mandap, which they claimed did not apply to their situation. They cited precedents from the Hon'ble High Courts of Calcutta where similar demands were set aside for clubs providing services only to their members.

The Commissioner of Service Tax rejected the appellants' contention, emphasizing that the term 'client' should be broadly interpreted to include any person receiving taxable services against consideration. The Commissioner noted that even though the services were rendered to the members of the center, there existed a service to its members on consideration, thus constituting an economic activity subject to service tax. The Commissioner highlighted that the legal provisions did not differentiate between service providers and receivers based on the existence of a society and its members.

In a similar case adjudicated by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court, it was held that the principle of mutuality applied, and the use of premises by club members could not be considered a letting out or a commercial transaction with third parties, thus not attracting service tax liability. The Court differentiated between members clubs and proprietary clubs, stating that members clubs, where the members and the club are the same entity, should not be liable to pay service tax for using their space as a Mandap.

Another judgment from the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court reiterated the distinction between members clubs and proprietary clubs concerning the imposition of service tax. It emphasized that for service tax to apply, there must be a transaction between two distinct entities, which was absent in the case of members clubs where the members and the club were considered the same entity. The Court concluded that members clubs allowing their members to use their space as a Mandap should not be subject to service tax.

Based on the precedents and the specific circumstances of the case where the center was used exclusively by its members, the Appellate Tribunal set aside the impugned order, ruling in favor of the appellants and allowing the appeal.