2015 (7) TMI 428 - HC - Service Tax

Extended period of limitation - Whether the learned Tribunal is justified in law to hold that the benefit of extended period of five years contemplated by Section 73(1) of Finance Act, 1994 was available to the Department in absence of a finding of fraud, collusion in the judgment impugned? Whether the learned Tribunal not erred in not holding that the Banquet Hall of the appellant would be covered under the definition of Mandap Keeper and chargeable to Service Tax and whereas the supply/sale of food would be an incident of sale and accordingly covered under Article 366(29A) of the Constitution of India? Whether the learned Tribunal not committed an error of jurisdiction by not holding that imposing a service tax on the incident of sale of food would amount to double taxation, the sale of food being already taxed under Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act? Liberty to move the Court after assessment is done.

Summary

The Bombay High Court heard arguments from both parties and framed the following Substantial Questions of Law:
1. Whether the Tribunal was correct in allowing the extended period for the Department without evidence of fraud or collusion?
2. Whether the Banquet Hall should be considered a Mandap Keeper and liable for Service Tax, with food sales treated as incidental sales?
3. Whether taxing the sale of food under Service Tax would result in double taxation, considering it is already taxed under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act?