Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Service tax penalty can’t survive when assessee acted on dept.’s own view of non-taxability: Delhi High Court. *  GST section 74 extended limitation questionable when form 26AS mismatch was already known: Karnataka High Court grants interim relief. *  CGST demand prima facie impermissible after state GST settlement under section 128A: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court asks GSTAT to sympathetically consider delay as taxpayers pursued remedy before wrong forum. *  Supreme Court stays Tripura High Court ruling protecting genuine buyers from ITC denial over supplier’s GST default. *  Diary entries alone can’t prove clandestine removal of goods: CESTAT quashes excise penalty on steel trader. *  Customs could investigate preferential tariff claims even before sec. 28DA: Delhi High Court. *  Customs dept. relied on fake AI generated case laws: supreme court quashes Rs. 425.28 crore penalty. *  No GST exemption in affiliation and annual registration charges for admission or conduct Of examinations: GSTAT. *  Mere invoices, cheque payments insufficient to establish genuine movement of goods: GSTAT restores Rs. 43.44 lakh ITC demand. *  Consolidated GST show cause notice covering multiple financial years is not without jurisdiction: Delhi High Court. *  Construction of independent houses on separate plots not taxable as ‘Residential Complex’ without common facilities: CESTAT. *  GST penalty exceeding statutory maximum unsustainable; Allahabad High Court quashes ? 50,000/- penalty after taxpayer filed return and paid late fee. *  GST order against standard chartered bank passed without hearing set aside by Bombay High Court. *  Retracted statements can’t be relied upon without cross-examination: CESTAT quashes gold confiscation. *  Burden to prove misclassification lies on customs department: CESTAT. *  CESTAT quashes Rs. 98 lakh excise demand on clearance of used refractory brick scrap. *  Service tax demand on irrigation works quashed: Karnataka High Court rules sale of goods component not taxable as service. *  GSTAT restores tax and penalty for transporting iron scrap without E-way bill citing intent to evade tax. *  Madras High Court stays GST recovery from directors without opportunity to show cause under section 89. *  Madras high court stays GST recovery notice against directors; finds prima facie case on applicability of section 79(1)(c). *  Procedural lapses can’t justify harsh punishment without serious customs breach: CESTAT quashes customs broker licence revocation. *  Service tax payable on land leasing and sports complex charges: CESTAT. *  Settled customs dispute can’t be reopened through Article 226 challenge to interest liability: Delhi High Court. *  Mere facilitation of customs clearance can’t establish knowledge of smuggling: Madras High Court. *  GST registration cancellation stayed: Allahabad High Court questions 99% ITC utilisation cap under rule 86B. *  Composition scheme lapses automatically on crossing Rs. 1.5 crore turnover: GSTAT. *  Gujarat High Court quashes GST cancellation orders after officer relied on non-existent AI-generated case laws. *  Importers liable for customs duty benefits availed through manipulated scrips: Delhi High Court. *  Procedural E-way bill lapse alone can’t justify penalty where genuine transaction and absence of tax evasion are established: GSTAT.
Subject News *  Documentary evidence dominates probe, further custody unwarranted: mumbai court grants bail in Rs. 22.44 crore customs duty evasion case. *  Business premises can’t remain sealed for non-participation in GST search: Allahabad High Court. *  GST pre-deposit must be refunded proportionately when taxpayer partly succeeds in appeal: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court grants 30 days to file GST appeal; keeps pre-deposit issue open due to deposit in parallel CGST proceedings. *  GST demand can’t exceed amount proposed in SCN: Allahabad High Court quashes Rs. 20.47 Crore order. *  Hundreds-of-crores GST demand and heavy 10% pre-deposit no ground to bypass statutory appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Delhi High Court refuses to entertain challenge to gold confiscation due to statutory appeal remedy and unexplained delay. *  Procedural error in customs broker licence inquiry can be rectified through remand: Delhi High Court. *  GSTR-2A mismatch alone can’t justify ITC denial without invoice-wise verification; personal hearing mandatory: GSTAT. *  GST order passed without uploading personal hearing notices violates sec. 75(4): Allahabad High Court. *  TAX EVASION - Sec. 74 GST SCN quashed for not spelling out fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression: Allahabad High Court. *  STPI’s SOFTEX certification and NoC charges taxable as business support services: CESTAT. *  Suspicion can’t replace proof: CESTAT quashes penalty in alleged gold-smuggling operation. *   Limitation runs from communication of order: Madras High Court upholds rejection of delayed GST Appeals. *  Rajasthan High Court quashes GST demand over unsigned show cause notice. *  ITC recovery upheld where supplier failed to deposit GST: Rajasthan High Court. *  Customs commissioner’s empowered to make port trust liable for duty on pilfered goods: Supreme Court. *  Rectification proceedings can’t be used to challenge an uncontested GST assessment through a writ petition: Andhra Pradesh HC. *  GST proceedings against deceased proprietor unsustainable without notice to legal heir: GSTAT. *  Mere availment of ineligible self-assessed ITC doesn’t amount to suppression without evidence of fraud or wilful misstatement: GSTAT. *  Disposal of mining overburden by entity authorised by mining lease holder constitutes taxable service: CESTAT. *  Toll plaza data not mandatory for ITC refund: GSTAT. *  Disputed GST fraud allegations require investigation: Punjab and Haryana High Court makes interim bail absolute in alleged fraud and GST fraud case. *  Non-manufacturer contractor liable to deposit excess excise duty collected from buyer: CESTAT. *  GST order can’t reject taxpayer’s reply as “not satisfactory” without reasons: Madhya Pradesh High Court. *  Uncorroborated statements can’t establish alleged diversion of duty-free goods: CESTAT. *  Erection services were not liable to service tax prior to 10th september 2004: CESTAT. *  Sec. 74 GST notice must spell out statutory ingredients for invoking extended tax demand proceedings: Allahabad High Court. *  No jurisdictional bar under section 6(2)(b) in parallel CGST SGST proceedings: Delhi High Court refuses to bypass GST appeal remedy. *  Madras High Court remits GST demand for fresh adjudication after taxpayer claims it was unaware of SCN following business closure.  

Comments

Publish Date: 16 Feb, 2010
Print   |    |  Comment

Looking Beyond the Things: Mandap Keeper

 

Looking Beyond the Things: Mandap Keeper

 

This Article written by:

CA Pradeep Jain and

Siddharth Rutiya

 

 

Introduction: -

 

The Mandap Keeper Service was brought into the service tax scope from 1-7-1997.The service of Mandap keeper has also raised many issues. The main issue arises when the food is also provided along with the services of Mandap Keeper. One of the options is to take abatement and pay the service tax. But this leads to forgoing of Cenvat credit available to the assessee. The other option is to pay the service tax and VAT on whole amount and take the credit on input services. But it increases the cost of the service provider. Our client who is running a Hotel and providing Mandap keeper facility has approached us to give an opinion so that the credit is also not lost as well as the service tax liability also does not increases. We are seeing this whole issue from this angle via this article:-

 

Definition of Mandap Keeper:-   

 

Section 65 (105) (m) of Finance Act, 1994 provides that “taxable service means any service provided or to be provided to any person, by a mandap keeper in relation to the use of mandap in any manner including the facilities provided or to be provided to such person in relation to such use and also the services, if any, provided or to be provided as a caterer.”

 

Further, Section 65(67) of the Finance Act, 1994 provides for the definition of "Mandap keeper". It provides as follows: -

 

“Mandap Keeper” means a person who allows temporary occupation of a mandap for a consideration for organising any official, social or business function;

 

Explanation.—For the purposes of this clause, “social function” includes marriage;”


This makes it ample clear that mandap keeper services are those services which are provided by a mandap keeper in relation to the use of mandap in any manner. This construes that such service will include any facilities provided to the service receiver, provided such facilities have relation to the use of the mandap by such person. For example where a person hires a mandap for performing a marriage, and mandap keeper not only allows temporary occupation of the mandap, but also undertakes to provide services connected with decorations, additional lighting, catering services etc.

 

Abatement:-

 

If the catering services are also provided by the mandap keeper and composite bill is raised then the abatement is allowed @ 40% by virtue of exemption Notification no. 1/2006-ST dated 01.03.2006. The relevant part of notification is reproduced below:-

 

EXEMPTIONS TO MANDAP KEEPERS

NOTIFICATION NO. 1/2006- SERVICE TAX, DATED 1.03.2006

 

In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 93 of the Finance Act, 1994 (32 of 1994) (hereinafter referred to as the Finance Act), the Central Government, on being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts the taxable service of the description specified in column (3) of the Table below and specified in the relevant sub-clauses of clause (105) of section 65 of the Finance Act, specified in the corresponding entry in column (2) of the said Table, from so much of the service tax leviable thereon under section 66 of the said Finance Act, as is in excess of the service tax calculated on a value which is equivalent to a percentage specified in the corresponding entry in column (5)  of the said Table, of the gross amount charged by such service provider for providing the said taxable service, subject to the relevant conditions specified in the corresponding entry in column (4) of the Table aforesaid:

 

TABLE

 

S. No.

Sub-Clause of clause (105) of section 65

Description of taxable service

Conditions

Percentage

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

1.

(m)

(1) The use of mandap, including the facilities provided to the client in relation to such use and also for the catering charges

 

 

 

 

 

 

(2) **

This exemption shall apply only in such cases where the mandap keeper also provides catering services, that is supply of food and the invoice, bill or challan issued indicates that it is inclusive of the charges for catering services.

 

**

60

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

**

(2) to (10)

**

**

**

 

 

 

Provided that this notification shall not apply in cases where,-

 

the CENVAT credit of duty on inputs or capital goods or the CENVAT credit of service tax on input services, used for providing such taxable service, has been taken under the provisions of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004: or

the service provider has availed the benefit under the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), No. 12/2003-Service Tax, dated the 20th June, 2003 [ G.S.R. 503 (E), dated the 20th June, 2003].

 

Explanation- For the purposes of this notification, the expression “food” means a substantial and satisfying meal and the expression “catering service” shall be construed accordingly.

 

Thus, it is clear that when the benefit of abatement is taken only when the charges for food are included in the bill and service tax is paid on complete amount. However, the cenvat credit on input, input services and capital goods is not available when the abatement is availed.

 

As we have read about the definition of Mandap keeper and abatement, we should move towards the options available to the Mandap keeper.

 

Option 1:-

 

In this regard where the use of mandap, includes the facilities provided to any person in relation to such use including the catering charges then, the service provider can validly avail the abatement facility under Exemption Notification no. 1/2006-ST, dated 01-03-2006. Under this notification the assessee can avail abatement @ 40% and pay service tax on balance 60% amount. But he will not be allowed to avail the CENVAT facility. Under this situation he will loose the CENVAT benefit and he will have to pay Service tax on the abated amount. This will lead to an indirect cost burden to the service provider. The lesser tax charged will benefit the client but the service provider will loose the benefit of credit on input services.

 

Option 2:-

 

However, if the service provider wants to avoid the said indirect cost burden of not availing CENVAT then he can go for the option of not availing abatement. He can pay the tax on complete amount and avail the Cenvat facility. In this option, the higher tax will be paid by the client and the credit will be available to the service provider. As such, it is most beneficial to service provider. In this case, the service tax and VAT is payable on complete amount which is not acceptable to the client. Moreover, we have come across one situation wherein after payment of service tax and VAT on complete amount the VAT authorities has asked for the payment of additional tax on service tax.

 

Option 3:-

 

The third alternative available is to bifurcate the amount of services provided and sale of food. Then the service provider will pay the service tax on the amount of services provided and VAT on the material sold amount. This is permissible as per Notification no. 12/2003- ST dated June 20, 2003. The relevant notification is produced as under:-

 

Notification No. 12/2003-Service Tax

In exercise of the powers conferred by section 93 of the Finance Act, 1994 (32 of 1994), the Central Government, being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts so much of the value of all the taxable services, as is equal to the value of goods and materials sold by the service provider to the recipient of service, from the service tax leviable thereon under section (66) of the said Act, subject to condition that there is documentary proof specifically indicating the value of the said goods and materials.

2. This notification shall come into force on the 1st day of July, 2003.

 

Thus, the service provider of Mandap keeper can separate the amount of materials sold and service provided. But it is again not very easy option. When you give Mandap along with catering then the charges are per person eg. Say Rs. 350 per person. But our client has told us that if you separate both of them then it is not acceptable to both VAT and Service Tax departments. For example, if we say that the charges for food are Rs. 100 per person and Mandap is Rs. 250 per person. But the VAT department will say that main thing is food and charges are so less. If the things are in opposite direction then the Service Tax department has objection saying that food is available on road side shop also, the person takes your Hotel for mandap due to star category enjoyed by the Hotel. We have told him that if you billed separately for VAT and service tax then the Service tax department has to accept it as you are paying VAT on the same. There are number of case laws available on this issue.  Some of them are enumerated below:-

 

Ø                 Sayaji Hotels Ltd v/s Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore [2009 (14) STR 390 (Tri-Del)]. In this case it was held as under:

 

Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Mandap Keeper service - Exemption under Notification Nos. 12/2003-S.T. and 21/1997-S.T., option of - Demand raised denying exemption under Notification No. 12/2003-S.T. for food and drinks supplied as Notification No. 21/1997-S.T. specifically for Mandap Keepers available - Latter notification issued when services of Mandap Keepers taxable and outdoor catering was not in tax net - Assessee billing separately for food and drink, hence prima facie may not satisfy condition of Notification No. 21/1997-S.T. - Conditions for availing Notification No. 12/2003-S.T. satisfied - Prima facie case for waiver of dues - Section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944 as applicable to Service tax vide Section 83 of Finance Act, 1994. [para 5]

Ø                 LSG Sky Chefs (India) Pvt Ltd v/s Commissioner of S. T., Bangalore [2009 (15) STR 545 (Tri-Bang.)]. In this case it was held that: -

 

Valuation - Abatement - Outdoor Catering service - Sales tax paid on food items supplied to airlines - Service tax paid on charges for handling, loading and transportation - Cost of food excluded from taxable value - Sales tax leviable on supply of food in catering contracts as per Constitution - Service tax not leviable once sales tax leviable on supply of food - Applicability of  Notification No. 12/2003-S.T. not examined correctly in impugned order - Cost of food items available on records and finding on not being entitled to exemption, not in order - Impugned order set aside - Article 366 (29A) of Constitution of India - Section 67 of Finance Act, 1994. [paras 3, 6]

 

Sales tax - Payment of - Effect on Service tax - Contract for service containing supply of goods also and sales tax paid on goods - Service tax not  leviable on such amount - Sales tax and Service tax mutually exclusive - Article 366 (29A) of Constitution of India - Section 66 of Finance Act, 1994. [para 6]

 

Ø                 In the case of Grand Ashok v/s Commr. of Service Tax, Bangalore [2009 (15) STR 344 (Tri-Bang)], it was held as under: -

 

Valuation (Service tax) - Sale of goods - Outdoor Caterer service - In-flight catering - Service tax paid in handling and transportation charges alone and not on gross amount - VAT paid on charges collected for food and beverages - Service tax leviable only on service component if contract contains components of service and supply of goods - Service tax not demandable simultaneously where goods involved and sales tax paid - Cost of food separately identifiable and exemption under Notification No. 12/2003-S.T. admissible - Bona fide belief on non-liability and extended period not invocable and penalties not imposable - Sections 67, 73 and 76 of Finance Act, 1994. [paras 6, 6.1, 6.2]

 

Ø                 In Sky Gourmet Pvt Ltd v/s Commr. of Service Tax, Bangalore [2009 (14) STR 777 (Tri-Bang)] it was held that: -

 

Valuation - Abatements - Includibility of goods sold in taxable value - In-flight catering under Outdoor Caterer service provided - Supply of goods being food or any article for human consumption deemed as sale as per Constitution - Article 366(29A) of Constitution of India providing legal fiction for catering contracts where contracts can be divisible into service and sale of goods portions - VAT or sales tax already discharged by appellants on sale of food and beverages - Service tax not payable on such goods sold - Documentary evidence in the form of invoice for sale of goods available - Exemption under Notification No. 12/2003-S.T. admissible - Section 67 of Finance Act, 1994. [paras 4, 5]

 

Valuation - Outdoor Caterer service - Deemed sale - Supply of goods deemed as sale of goods under Article 366(29A) of Constitution of India - Food supplied under Outdoor Caterer service to be treated as sale of goods - Service tax not payable on such value of such goods once sales tax or VAT paid - Section 67 of Finance Act, 1994. [para 4]

 

Outdoor Caterer service - Exemption - Abatement to cost of food and beverages supplied for in-flight catering - Revenue contending that abatement under Notification Nos. 20/2004-S.T. and 1/2006-S.T. admissible - Assessee claiming exemption under Notification No. 12/2003-S.T. as invoices evidencing sale of goods available - Appellant having option to choose more beneficial notification when two options available - Benefit of Notification No. 12/2003-S.T. admissible - Sections 67 and 93 of Finance Act, 1994. [para 5]

 

But the same is not acceptable as it leads to litigation and no litigation was required.

 

Option 4:-

 

This has directed to think more and the conclusion was that the person who does not provide the catering along with the Hall, charge normally lump sum amount on daily basis say Rs. 10,000 per day. Whereas catering charges are always per person. If one fix up certain lump sum amount for the Hall charges and catering charges per plate then it will be acceptable to the department. Rates should be fixed on pure commercial consideration. Service tax should be paid on such lump sum charges and VAT on such catering charges. Then there will not be any dispute. Moreover, the service provider will be able to get the Cenvat credit. The Vat and service tax will be charged from the service provider and he will not have any problem in paying the same as these are charged separately on both the amounts.

 

Comparison of options:-

 

We can compare the four options. But option 3 and option 4 are alike and only thing is that the style of billing has been changed. Thus, option 3 and option 4 are identical. Conclusively, we can compare these options in tabular form as under: -

 

 

Particulars

Option 1

Option 2

Option 3 & 4

CENVAT benefit

Not allowed

Allowed

Allowed

Service Tax Charge

On abated amount

On Total amount

On Service Charges only.

VAT Charge

On Total amount

On Total amount including Service Tax thereon.

On sale of Food Only.

 

Conclusion: - 

 

Thus from above, it can be seen that the option 3 & 4 are most beneficial. The service provider is happy as he is getting the Cenvat credit on the same. The service provider is happy as he has to pay the service tax and VAT on separate amounts and overall cost is low. From foregoing, it is clear that the option 3 or 4 is most beneficial.

 

This is our viewpoint. There are other scholars who also want to comment on the same. We are waiting for the same……………..

 

**********

Comments

  • B V J RAO on 18 February, 2010 wrote:

    I fully agree Mr. Pradeep Jain on Option 3 & 4. It is very beneficial for a service provider and to a customer also. In the Current Scenario, if we go on Option 2, we have seen the situations and received demand notices from the VAT Authorities to pay VAT on Service Tax. Cases are pending in High Courts for such demand (VAT on Service Tax)therefore better to opt either 3 or 4. Very good article. It clears the doubts of many people. B V J Rao, Financial Controller, Taj Hari Mahal, Jodhpur

Post a Comment



Department News


Query

 
PRADEEP JAIN, F.C.A.

Head Office : -

Address :
"SUGYAN", H - 29, SHASTRI NAGAR, JODHPUR (RAJ.) - 342003

Phone No. :
0291 - 2439496, 0291 - 3258496

Mobile No. :
09314722236

Fax No. :0291 - 2439496


Branch Office : -

Address:
1008, 10th FLOOR, SUKH SAGAR COMPLEX,
NEAR FORTUNE LANDMARK HOTEL, USMANPURA,
ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380013

Phone No. :
079-32999496, 27560043

Mobile No. :
093777659496, 09377649496

E-mail :pradeep@capradeepjain.com