The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) ruled that “Mandap Keeper Services” do not qualify as “support services” under Section 65B(49) of the Finance Act, 1994, and are non-taxable as they fall under the “negative list” of services post-01.07.2012.
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation ( AMC ), the appellant received Service Tax demands for services categorized as “Mandap Keeper Services” for the period 2008-2009 to 2012-2013. Separate demands were raised for collections from three different premises.
Expert-Led PF & ESIC Course – Enroll Now & Get Certified
The appellant challenged the demands for two periods, before 01.07.2012 and post 01.07.2012. The appellant’s counsel argued that before 01.07.2012 demands were time-barred and the extended period of limitation could not be invoked.
The appellant’s counsel claimed it was a statutory body under the Gujarat government with no intent to evade taxes or suppress information. The appellant’s counsel cited judicial precedents, including Municipal Corporation Rajahmundry, Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation, and Karad Nagar Parishad, to support its arguments.
The appellant’s counsel argued that post 01.07.2012 services were non-taxable under the “negative list” of Section 66D of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant’s counsel contended that “Mandap Keeper Services” did not qualify as “support services” under Section 65B(49) of the Finance Act.
Revenue claimed the appellant failed to provide adequate documentation to prove services were provided to non-business entities.
The two member bench comprising Ramesh Nair (Judicial Member) and Raju (Technical Member) observed that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not address the issue of limitation for the pre 01.07.2012 period.
Expert-Led PF & ESIC Course – Enroll Now & Get Certified
The tribunal reviewed the definition of “support services” and concluded that “Mandap Keeper Services” do not fit the criteria outlined in Section 65B(49). The tribunal explained that the appellant’s services post 01.07.2012 were covered under the “negative list” and hence non-taxable.
The tribunal ruled that the appellant as a statutory body could not be accused of intent to suppress or evade taxes making the extended limitation period inapplicable for pre 01.07.2012. The tribunal explained that revenue’s classification of the appellant’s services as “support services” was without merit.
The tribunal modified the orders of the lower authorities and set aside the tax demands. The appeal of the appellant was allowed.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
