2012 (2) TMI 26 - HC - Service Tax

Accommodation service Section 65(105)(zzzzw) of Finance Act, 1994 - Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD) is constituted under the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, running some guest houses for pilgrims Held that - There is no doubt that the petitioner is running guest houses by whatever name they are called whether it is a shelter for pilgrims or any other name. There is no dispute that it has been running these guest houses for a considerable time. Under these circumstances, the petitioner is liable to have itself registered for payment of service tax. We find no error in the view taken by the respondents in this regard Decided against the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Applicability of service tax on a religious and charitable institution running guest houses.
2. Exemption from service tax for religious and charitable institutions.
3. Interpretation of the Finance Act regarding service tax on accommodation services.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Andhra Pradesh High Court dealt with the issue of whether a religious and charitable institution, specifically the petitioner Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD), running guest houses for pilgrims, is liable to pay service tax under the Finance Act. The respondents had issued notices to the petitioner to register as an 'accommodation service' for the levy of service tax. The petitioner contended that it is not a club or association and operates without a profit motive. However, the court noted that there was no absolute exemption granted to the petitioner, despite a mention of a 50% exemption in previous notifications. The court referred to the Finance Act, specifically clause 65(105)(zzzzw), which includes persons providing accommodation for a continuous period of less than three months under the purview of service tax.

The court acknowledged that the petitioner was indeed running guest houses for pilgrims, irrespective of the name used to describe these facilities. Given the continuous operation of these guest houses, the court held that the petitioner is liable to register for service tax payment. The judgment emphasized the absence of any error in the respondent's decision to require the petitioner to pay service tax. The court dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner, finding no merit in the arguments presented. Consequently, the interim application was also dismissed by the court.