2015 (6) TMI 196 - AT - Service Tax

Demand of the service tax - club or Association services - Held that - High Court of Gujarat in the case of Sports Club of India Special 2013 (7) TMI 510 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT wherein their Lordships have struck down the provisions of section 65(25A), section 65(105)(zzze) of the Finance Act, 1994 in respect of the leviability of service tax by the club on its members. This ratio has been followed by the Tribunal in the case of Matunga Gymkhana in 2015 (1) TMI 1146 - CESTAT MUMBAI . The ratio of the decisions will squarely apply in this case and in the favour of the appellant. - decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Service tax liability on various amounts collected by the appellant
- Applicability of case laws and judicial pronouncements
- Decision on the appeal based on precedents

Analysis:
1. Service Tax Liability: The appellant, registered under service tax for mandap-keeper, health club, and fitness center services, faced a show cause notice for not discharging service tax on entrance fees, subscriptions, miscellaneous charges, locker fees, and donations. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand, penalties, and interest. The appellant contended that certain amounts like subscription fees and donations should not attract service tax, citing case laws to support their argument.

2. Applicability of Case Laws: The appellant's argument relied on case laws to assert that not all collected amounts were subject to service tax. The departmental representative supported the adjudicating authority's findings. The Tribunal considered the submissions and records to assess the service tax demand based on the appellant's services falling under the club or association category.

3. Judicial Pronouncements: The Tribunal referred to a judgment by the High Court of Gujarat in a similar case, where provisions of the Finance Act regarding service tax levy by clubs on members were struck down. This decision was also upheld by the Tribunal in another case. Citing these precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned order was unsustainable. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order, allowing the appeal in favor of the appellant based on the authoritative judicial pronouncements.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision was influenced by the precedents set by the High Court and Tribunal in similar cases, leading to the setting aside of the order against the appellant concerning the service tax liability on various collected amounts.