2022 (11) TMI 152 - AT - Service Tax

Levy of service tax - Event Management services or not - respondent was conducting Cricket Matches as per the direction of BCCI and for that purpose the BCCI are transferring/ paying various type of amounts under the cover of subsidies / subvention from the amount of profit which was earned by the by way of conducting matches - It is the contention of the department that the respondent were treated as Sponsor/organizer because they are not organizing the event themselves, but for the same, BCCI has appointed/ authorized the respondent to conduct and manage such events. HELD THAT - In the present case the show cause notice was raised by the revenue on the amount receive by the respondent from the BCCI as subsidy. The department has construed the said receipt as service charges received from BCCI against the services of event management. From the facts, it is clear that the respondent have received the subsidy against the expenses incurred for conducting Cricket Matches, therefore, by any stretch of imagination it cannot be said that the respondent has provided any taxable service to BCCI. This issue has already been considered by this tribunal in the case of VIDARBH CRICKET ASSOCIATION 2014 (1) TMI 204 - CESTAT MUMBAI (LB) where it is settled that in the case of the Cricket Association, similarly, placed as the appellant the subsidy received from BCCI was held to be non-taxable. The demand in the present case in the show cause notice was rightly dropped by the adjudicating authority - there are no infirmity in the impugned order - appeal of Revenue dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Whether the subsidies received from BCCI by the respondent constitute service charges for event management services and are thus taxable.
2. The applicability of the extended period of limitation for confirming service tax demands.
3. The liability of the respondent to pay interest on service tax demands.
4. The imposition of penalties under sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Taxability of Subsidies from BCCI:
The primary issue was whether the subsidies received by the respondent from BCCI were to be construed as service charges for event management services. The department argued that the respondent was acting as an event manager for BCCI, thus the subsidies should be taxable. However, the tribunal found that the subsidies were provided to cover expenses for conducting cricket matches and not as payment for services rendered. It was clarified that the subsidies were meant to promote cricket, cover infrastructural costs, and not for any business or commerce purposes. This was supported by previous judgments, including the case of Vidarbh Cricket Association, where similar subsidies were deemed non-taxable. The tribunal concluded that the respondent did not provide any taxable service to BCCI, and thus, the subsidies could not be considered as service charges.

2. Extended Period of Limitation:
The tribunal examined whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for confirming the service tax demands. The appellant claimed a bona fide belief of non-liability to service tax, which was not accepted by the tribunal. It was held that the appellant did not seek any legal opinion or refer the matter to departmental authorities, thus failing to demonstrate a bona fide belief. The tribunal cited the Gujarat High Court's decision in Neminath Fabrics, affirming that the extended period of limitation was correctly invoked due to the appellant's suppression of facts with intent to evade tax.

3. Liability to Pay Interest:
The tribunal upheld that once service tax demands are confirmed, the liability to pay interest is automatic and consequential. Interest is considered a compensatory payment for the delay in tax payment. Therefore, the respondent was liable to pay interest on the confirmed service tax demands.

4. Imposition of Penalties:
The tribunal addressed the imposition of penalties under sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Penalties under section 76 were upheld for default in tax payment, as no mens rea is required. Penalties under section 77 were also upheld for non-compliance with statutory provisions such as registration and filing of returns. For penalties under section 78, the tribunal found that except for the case of renting of immovable property (where the levy was under challenge), the appellant had suppressed facts with intent to evade tax, justifying the penalties imposed.

Conclusion:
The tribunal concluded that the subsidies received from BCCI were not taxable as service charges for event management services. The extended period of limitation was correctly invoked, and the respondent was liable to pay interest on service tax demands. Penalties under sections 76 and 77 were upheld, and penalties under section 78 were upheld except for the case of renting of immovable property. The tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal and upheld the adjudicating authority's order.