2018 (3) TMI 498 - AT - Service Tax

Mandap keeper service - Appellants are having facilities of Training hall with all equipments and facilities for giving training to Non-governmental Organisations (NGO) as well as to others for conducting programmes - The department after conducting survey felt that their activity of letting out the hall would attract service tax and they were addressed to register with the department for service tax on 17.1.2005. Held that - As per section 67 (32) of the Finance Act, convention means a formal meeting or assembly which is not open to the general public, but does not include a meeting or assembly, the principal purpose of which is to provide any type of amusement, entertainment or recreation - till 1.5.2006 taxable service in respect of convention service was laid down as to a client, by any commercial concern in relation to holding of a convention, in any manner . With effect from 1.5.2006, the words commercial concern was substituted by the words person and w.e.f 16.5.2008, the words to a client was replaced by the word to any person . There is no dispute that appellants are a charitable, non-profit organization and for the period at least upto 1.5.2006, appellant cannot be called a commercial concern and hence there cannot be any tax liability till that date in respect of convention service . It is also not the allegation that such meetings or assembly were held for the principal purpose to provide any type of amusement, entertainment or recreation. This being the case on record, the activities of the appellant cannot fall within the ambit of Mandap Keeper service. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the activity of letting out a training hall by an organization for conducting programs attracts service tax under the category of "Mandap Keeper Service"?
2. Whether the activity falls under the definition of "Convention Service" instead of "Mandap Keeper Service"?
3. Whether the organization, being a non-profit organization, can be considered a "commercial concern" for tax liability purposes?

Issue 1:
The case involved a dispute regarding the service tax liability of an organization that let out its training hall for conducting programs. The department alleged that the organization provided taxable services as a "Mandap Keeper" without registering for service tax. The original authority confirmed a tax liability of ?7,73,998 with penalties. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the decision, leading to the appeal before the forum.

Issue 2:
The appellant argued that their activity should be classified as "Convention Service" rather than "Mandap Keeper Service." They relied on circulars and case laws to support their position. The appellant contended that their activities, focused on official functions like training, fell within the definition of conventions and not mandap keeping. They highlighted confusion due to overlapping entries and the substitution of "commercial concern" with "any person" in the law.

Issue 3:
The department argued that the organization's halls were rented out for consideration, making them liable for service tax regardless of their charitable status. They maintained that the service provided by the organization fell under "Mandap Keeper Service" as classified by the Commissioner (Appeals). The department emphasized that monetary consideration was the key factor for tax liability, irrespective of the charitable nature of the organization.

The Tribunal analyzed the facts and submissions. It noted that the organization primarily focused on promoting welfare through training programs for various sectors. The facilities were used for training, workshops, and conferences, as evidenced by communications with other organizations seeking to utilize the appellant's facilities. The Tribunal found that the activities did not align with the definition of "Mandap Keeper," which involves temporary occupation for official, social, or business functions.

Regarding the classification of services, the Tribunal considered the definition of "convention" and the changes in tax liability criteria over time. It observed that the organization, being a charitable entity, could not be considered a "commercial concern" before a certain date. As the activities in question occurred before this date, the Tribunal concluded that there was no tax liability for the services rendered during that period.

In light of the above analysis and case laws supporting the classification of activities under "Convention Centre Service," the Tribunal set aside the impugned order. It ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the appeal with consequential relief as per law.

This detailed judgment addressed the issues of tax liability classification, charitable status impact on tax liability, and the specific nature of the organization's activities in determining the applicable service category.