Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *   CBIC issues draft rules for Customs valuation *  Top Headlines: Threshold for Benami deals, green bond investors, and more *  Govt aims 1-hour clearance for goods at all ports *  Exporters Allowed To Use RoDTEP, RoSCTL Scrips To Pay Customs Duty, Transfer Them; Rules Amended *  Millions of labourers to be affected by brick producers’ strike over hike in GST, coal rates *  Inauguration of ‘kendriya GST parisar’ *  Transporter can seek Release of Conveyance alone, not Goods under GST Act: Madras HC *  GST: Quoting of DIN Mandatory for Responding to Notice, Govt Modifies Portal *  Firms can soon file claims for GST credits of ?400 cr *  CBIC issues modalities for filing transitional credit under GST. *  Mumbai: Man creates 36 fake GST firms, arrested for input tax credit fraud of Rs 23 cr *  Report to restructure Commerce Ministry under study; idea is to set up trade promotion body: Goyal *  Firms can soon file claims for GST credits of ?400 cr *  Gambling Alert! Govt May Levy Up To 28% GST; UP, Bengal Back Move *  EPFO backs raising retirement age to ease pressure on pension funds *  India Moving Up Power Scale, Set to Become Third Largest Economy By 2030 *  Airfares Get Expensive: What Changes for Flyers From Today? *  IRCTC Latest News: Passengers to Pay More For Cancelling Confirmed Rail Tickets Soon. *  IBC prevails over Customs Act, says Supreme Court. *  As GST enters sixth year, a time for evaluation and reassessment *  There’s GST on daily essentials as Centre needs money to buy MLAs: Arvind Kejriwal *  Now, GST on cancellation of confirmed train tickets, hotel bookings *  GST kitty for top States could rise 20% in FY23, says Crisil *  French customs officials seize another cargo vessel over Russia sanctions *  TradeLens builds on Asia momentum with Pakistan Customs deal *  Hike tax on tobacco, reduce affordability & increase revenue: Civil society organizations to GST council *  Bihar: ?10 crore tax evasion on tobacco products detected in raids *  Centre failed on GST, COVID; would it be anti-national? Rajan on Infosys row *  Service Tax not Chargeable on Income Tax TDS portion paid by recipient: CESTAT grants relief to TVS *  Foreign portfolio investors make net investment of Rs 7575cr in Sep so far
Subject News *  Run-up to Budget: Monetary threshold for GST offences may rise to Rs 25 cr *   GST (Tax) E-invoice Must For Businesses With Over Rs 5 Crore Annual Turnover *   Both Central GST and excise duty can be imposed on tobacco, rules Karnataka high court *   CBIC Issues Clarification On Extended Timelines For GST Compliance *   CBIC Issues Clarification On Extended Timelines For GST Compliance *  Budget 2023- 9.6 crore gas connections *  GST: Tamil Nadu Issues Instructions for Assessment and Adjudication Proceedings *  GST: CBIC Extends Last Date for filing of ITC *  GST collection in September surpasses Rs 1.4 lakh crore for straight seventh time *  Dollar smuggling case: Customs chargesheet names M Sivasankar as key conspirator. *  Hike in GST rates fuels inflation *  Assam: CBI arrests GST commissioner in Guwahati *  GST fraud worth ?824cr by 15 insurance Cos detected *  India proposes 15% customs duties on 22 items imported from UK *  Decriminalising certain offences under GST on cards *  Surge in GST collections more due to higher inflation: India Ratings *  MNRE Notifies BCD and Hike in GST Rates as ‘Change in Law’ Events But With a Condition | Mercom India *   Solar projects awarded before customs duty change allowed cost pass-through *  Rajasthan High Court Dismisses Writ Petitions Challenging Levy Of GST On Royalty *   GST revenue in September likely at Rs 1.45 lakh crore *  Govt working on decriminalising certain offences under GST, lower compounding charge *  Building an institution like GST Council takes time, trashing is easy: Sitharaman *  GST collections in Sept may touch ?1.5 lakh crore *  KTR asks Centre to withdraw GST on handlooms *  After Gameskraft, More Online Gaming Startups To Receive GST Tax Claims *  Madras HC: AAR Application Filed Under VAT Does Not Survive After GST Enactment *  Threshold for criminal offences under GST law may be raised *  Bengaluru: Gaming company faces biggest GST notice of Rs 21,000 crore *  CBIC clarifies Classification of Cranes for GST, Customs Duty *  Customs seize gold hidden in bicycle in Kerala airport  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/Case Laws/2012-13/1034

Mandap Keeper Service - Parking charges collected - whether includible in Assessable value?

Case: DESERT INN LIMITED Versus COMMISSIONER Of C. EX., JAIPUR
 
Citation: 2011 (23) S.T.R. 254 (Tri. - Del)
 
Issue:- Mandap Keeper service - Parking charges collected separately in relation to Mandap Keeper service are includable in Assessable value
 
Extended period of limitation invokable as amount of Parking charges not coming out from balance sheets that whether these charges are collected from same client or not.
 
Penalty cannot be imposed simultaneously under Section 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.
 
Brief Facts:- Appellants are providing services of Mandap Keeper and are paying Service Tax for the said activity. Apart from the Mandap, they are having a parking space for which they are charging separately for use of the parking space by their clients, who enjoyed the services of Mandap provided by the appellants. The depart­ment wants to charge Service Tax on the amount received in respect of parking charges for the space provided by the appellants to their clients using the Man- dap facility.
 
Accordingly, a Show Cause Notice was issued and demands were confirmed.
 
Aggrieved from the said order, the appellants filed this appeal against this order before the Tribunal.
 
Appellant’s Contention:- The Appellant submits that the appellants are is­suing separate invoice for the parking charges and same are reflected in their balance sheet separately and the major portion of the demand is time-barred. Hence the demands are not sustainable.
 
Appellant further submitted that since it is a matter of interpretation, penalties are also not to be levied. In support of his con­tention, he placed reliance on Merwara Estates v. CLE, Jaipur reported in 2009 (16) S.T.R. 268 (Tri.-Del.).
 
Appellant also submitted that a demand has been raised on the basis of the balance sheet and the allegation of suppression has been made out.
 
Appellant submitted that the extended period is not invokable as suppression cannot be alleged on the basis of balance sheet as held by this Tribunal in the case of Martin & Harris Laboratories Ltd. v. CCE, Gurgaon reported in 2005 (185) E.L.T. 421 (Tn.­Del.).
 
Respondent’s Contention:- Revenue submitted that the parking space has been provided by the appellants to their clients who are enjoying Mandap provided by the appellants. Without parking space Mandap cannot be enjoyed by the cli­ents and it is not the case that the appellants are charging car parking charges from the persons who are parking the cars in that car parking space. It is admit­ted fact that these parking charges are collected by the appellants from their cli­ents who enjoyed Mandap services. As the said facts have been suppressed by the appellants from the department, the adjudicating authority has rightly in­voked the extended period and imposed penalty.
 
Reasoning of Judgment:- From the bare perusal of the definition of the services brought under tax vide sub-section 65(105)(m) of Finance Act, 1994, we find that any services provided by the assessee to their client in relation to Mandap Keeper is also to be included in the services of a Mandap Keeper. It is an admitted fact that the facility of car parking was made available to the clients who availed the services of the Mandap. It is also an admitted fact that the car parking charges were collected from the client who hired the Mandap and not from the persons who were parking their cars in that car parking. Hence these services of car parking was in relation to use of the Mandap. Hence, we are not in agreement with the Id. Advocate that this car parking was a separate service provided by the appellants to their client. Further, the case law cited by the Id. Advocate in the case of Merzoara Estates (su­pra) is not applicable to the facts of this case.
 
As in that case, apart from the Mandap, the rooms in the hotel were availed by the client. It is admitted fact that the rooms of the hotel is not necessary for use of the Mandap. But in this case which is in our hand, the car parking is a necessary facility for use of the Man- dap. Further the charges are payable by the person who uses the Mandap. Hence, the facts are distinguishable and the ratio in the case of Merwara Estates is not applicable to the facts of this case. Further, reliance placed by the Id. Advo­cate that they have clearly mentioned the car parking charges in their balance sheet separately which is a public document and the extended period is not in­vokable alleging suppression the facts in this case. In this case it was not coming out from the balance sheet whether these car parking charges are collected by the appellants from the same client using Mandap facility or not. Hence, the facts are distinguishable in the case of Martin & Harris Laboratories Ltd. (supra). It is admit­ted by the appellants that due to rush of vehicle the problem of parking is assum­ing utmost importance and the appellants who holds a banquet hall has to pro­vide some parking space to be used for parking of vehicles by the guests of the client holding a function in the banquet hall, The said statement by the appel­lants also confirmed the view of this Tribunal that the car parking facility has been provided by the appellants in relation to the service provided for the Man- dap. The appellants have suppressed the fact from the department that these car parking charges are collected from the clients who are using the Mandap. Hence, the lower authorities has rightly invoked the extended period of limitation.
 
With regard to the penalties, the tribunal finds that in the impugned order both the penalties under Section 76 and 78 of the Finance Act have been con­firmed and no option to the appellants has been given to pay 25% of the penalty within 30 days of the order of adjudication. Accordingly, we give this option to the appellants following the decision in the case of K.P. Pouches (P) Ltd. v. U01 reported in 2008 (228) E.L.T. 31 of Delhi High Court. Once penalty under Section 78 is imposed, penalty under Section 76 is not maintainable.
 
As discussed above, the demands confirmed by the lower authorities on account of service tax payable on car parking charges which are received in relation of Mandap Keeper Services are confirmed along with interest, only pen­alty under Section 78 is confirmed with an option to pay the entire demand along with interest and 25% of penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 fol­lowing the decision in the case of K.P. Pouches wherein the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has given an option to pay 25% of the penalty within 30 days of the order of adjudication. It is pertinent to mention that if the appellants fails to pay the entire Service Tax demands along with interest and 25% of the penalty within 30 days of the communication of this order, the appellants shall be liable to pay 100% service tax as penalty confirmed by the adjudication order.
 
Decision:- Appeal disposed of accordingly.

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