2013 (11) TMI 604 - AT - Service Tax

Stay application - Renting of immovable property - Held that - facility of utilization of the stadium for any purpose would clearly show that the stadium can be used for business or commerce also. Therefore, providing hospitality boxes are not merely for watching international matches but also utilizing the stadium free of cost for other purposes. Prima facie, in our opinion, it comes under the purview of the definition of renting of immovable property - Prima facie case not in favour of assessee - Stay partly granted. Event management service - Tripartite agreement with BCCI-IPL and Franchisee - Facility provided by the appellant is the utilization of stadium, for which the appellant receives consideration - Held that - Prima facie case in favour of assessee - Stay granted.

Issues:
1. Confirmation of service tax demand with interest and penalties.
2. Service tax demand related to sale of space for advertisement.
3. Service tax demand related to renting of immovable property for hospitality boxes.
4. Service tax demand related to event management service.

Analysis:
1. The judgment confirms the service tax demand of Rs.1,55,15,920/- against the appellant along with interest and penalties under Section 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1944.

2. The first issue pertains to the service tax demand of Rs.20,68,240/- for the sale of space for advertisement. The appellant's advocate requested to argue this matter in detail during the final hearing, and the Tribunal decided not to address this issue at the present stage.

3. The second issue involves the service tax demand of Rs.94,92,480/- for renting of immovable property, specifically for providing hospitality boxes at a stadium. The appellant argued that the renting of hospitality boxes should not be considered as renting of immovable property due to the nature of the services provided. The Tribunal acknowledged the limitation aspect as the amounts were collected before the service tax was applicable, and also considered the argument that the facility provided extended beyond watching matches, potentially falling under 'renting of immovable property.'

4. The third issue concerns the service tax demand of Rs.39,55,200/- for event management services. The appellant claimed that they only provided the stadium for the event and had no role in the management, while the department argued that this activity falls under 'renting of immovable property.' The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's argument, considering it as a prima facie case.

5. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant needed to pay at least Rs.36 lakhs, but since they had already deposited Rs.50 lakhs, a waiver of pre-deposit and a stay against recovery during the appeal's pendency were granted. The judgment highlighted the arguments presented by both sides and made decisions based on the merits and limitations of the service tax demands in question.

← Previous Next →