2013 (10) TMI 185 - AT - Service Tax

Mandap Keeper Service u/s - 65(67) and 65(105) - Charitable Trusts - in the temple some stalls were let out to different persons for the business of selling toys, garlands, flowers, food etc - Held that - The demands were confirmed under the mandap keeper service - As per the provisions of Sections 65(67) and 65(105) of the Finance Act, mandap keeper means a person who allows temporary occupation of a mandap for a consideration for organizing any official, social or business function - even in reply to show cause notice, the appellants stated the facts that certain stalls were allotted to different persons for selling different items such as toys, garlands, flowers, food etc. and produced evidence in support of this claim - In view of this, we find merit in the contention of the appellants that the appellants were not covered under the scope of mandap keeper service - The orders were set aside Decided in favour of Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to service tax demands for providing mandap keeper service during a temple festival.

Analysis:
The appellants, Charitable Trusts registered under the Income Tax Act, contested demands of service tax confirmed on the basis of providing mandap keeper service during a temple festival. They managed a temple where stalls were let out to different persons for selling various items during Navratri days. The appellants argued that this activity did not fall under the purview of "mandap keeper service."

The Revenue supported the demands, asserting that the appellants, by organizing the Navratri festival, were essentially arranging a social function, justifying the tax liabilities. However, the Tribunal examined the provisions of Sections 65(67) and 65(105) of the Finance Act, defining a 'mandap keeper' as a person allowing temporary occupation of a mandap for organizing official, social, or business functions.

Upon reviewing the facts presented by the appellants, including evidence of stalls being allotted for selling toys, garlands, flowers, and food, the Tribunal found merit in their argument. It was established that the appellants did not fall within the scope of "mandap keeper service." Consequently, the impugned orders confirming the service tax demands were set aside, and the appeals were allowed. The Tribunal's decision was based on the specific activities undertaken by the appellants during the festival, which did not align with the definition of mandap keeper service under the relevant provisions of the Finance Act.

This judgment highlights the importance of accurately interpreting statutory definitions and applying them to the factual circumstances of each case to determine the tax liability. The Tribunal's thorough analysis of the activities conducted by the appellants during the temple festival led to a favorable outcome for the appellants, emphasizing the need for a precise understanding of the legal framework governing tax obligations in such situations.