9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 932X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt and their members and no commercial transaction takes place while temporarily providing property to their members or their guests, as the property belongs to the members collectively who formed the club to serve them mutually which acts as their agent. The members pay for use of the property and the receipt and expenditure of the club is incurred by the members alone and not by any third person - the appellant were not rendering taxable services of “Mandap Keeper” in terms of the section 65 of the Act at the material time and therefore, cannot be charged to service tax - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... members. In these circumstances, the members cannot be termed as clients as definition of "Mandap Keeper" in section 65(90) of the Act as the legal status of the members is the same as the club itself. The services provided by the appellant to their members have to be treated as the activities of a self-serving institution where members cannot be considered as clients of the appellant and cannot be equated with the normal commercial transactions of a mandap keeper with its customers. The primary condition for the services to be termed as "Mandap Keeper" services as per the definition of "Mandap Keeper" in section 56(90) of the Act is the existence of a client which is absent in the instant case. Mutuality of interest exists between the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id down in Maneklal Chunilal & Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 1953 (24) ITR 375; Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Chimanlal J Dalal & Co.1965 (57) ITR 285, Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Tata Sons Pvt. Ltd. 1974 (97) ITR 128 and JD Patel Vs. UOI 1975 GLR 1083. We are, therefore, in respectful agreement with the view taken by the Calcutta High Court in the decision referred to in Dalhousie Institute and Saturday Club cases (supra)." In view of the above, I respectfully follow the judgments of the superior appellate authorities and accordingly hold that the appellant were not rendering taxable services of "Mandap Keeper" in terms of the section 65 of the Act at the material time and therefore, cannot be charged to service tax. I therefore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
