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

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/Case Law/2013-14/2111

Issue:- Whether room charges collected for rooms let out along with conducting conferences includible under Mandap keeper service?

Case:-SANJAY ELECTRICAL Vs COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, NOIDA

Citation:- 2014-TIOL-340-CESTAT-DEL

Brief facts:- The appeal and stay petition were directed against Order-in-Original No. 06/RKS/ST/P-I/2013 dated 09/03/2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune -I. Vide the impugned order a service tax demand of Rs. 1,11,85,317/- had been confirmed against the appellant M/s. Dukes Retreat Ltd. for the period 2007-08 to 2011-12 (up to April 2011) under the category of Mandap Keeper Service along with interest thereon apart from imposing penalties under the provisions of Finance Act, 1994. Aggrieved of the same the appellant was before Tribunal.

 

Appellant’s contentions:- The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the demand in this case had been made in respect of the room charges collected by the appellant for renting out the premises for conducting conferences etc. Service tax on room charges came into effect only on 01/05/2011 and, therefore, for the period prior to 01/05/2011 they were not liable to pay service tax. He further submitted that in the appellant's own case, for the previous period, this Tribunal had granted stay vide order NO. S/549-550/2006/CSTB/CI dated 29/06/2006 in respect of the demands pertaining to the period July, 1998 to March, 1999. He further relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Rambagh Palace Hotels Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur = (2012-TIOL- 673-CESTAT-DEL) wherein it was held that value of room charges booked for the purpose of marriages, conferences, etc was not includable in the Mandap Keeper Services and renting out hotel rooms does not fall within the purview of Mandap Keeper Service. In view of these decisions, he prayed for grant of stay.

 

Respondent’s contentions:- The learned Additional Commissioner (AR) appearing for the Revenue, on the other hand, rebutted the contention of the counsel for the appellant. He submitted that the appellant had rented out the premises for conducting conferences, etc. including catering and, therefore the entire activity would come within the purview of Mandap Keeper service and therefore, even in respect of the room charges the levy of service tax under the Mandap Keeper Service would apply and, therefore, he pleaded that the appellant be put to terms.

 

Reasons of judgment:- We had carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. Considering the fact that, in appellant's own case, for the previous period, this Tribunal had granted unconditional waiver from pre-deposit of the service tax liability on room charges and also considering the decision of this tribunal in the case of Rambagh Palace Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the appellant had made out a prima facie case for grant of stay. Accordingly, we grant waiver from pre-deposit of the adjudicated liability and stay recovery thereof during the pendency of the appeal.

 

Decision:- Stay was granted.

 

Comment:-The issue of inclusion of room charges with respect to rooms given along with conducting conferences or organising marriages has been decided in favour of the assessee in the case of Rambagh Palace Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (2012-TIOL-673-CESTAT-DEL). Accordingly, stay application was allowed because prima facie the value of room charges is not includible in the value of mandap keeper services.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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