Outdoor catering service attracts service tax on gross receipts; belated jurisdiction objections and bona fide belief plea failed.

Supplying food at the recipient's premises for consideration falls within outdoor catering service under the Finance Act, 1994, so service tax is chargeable on the gross amount received. A territorial jurisdiction objection raised for the first time before the Tribunal was rejected because the service was rendered within the relevant commissionerate and no failure of justice was shown. Penalties under Sections 77 and 78 were upheld since the assessee had not obtained registration, filed returns, or paid tax, and no bona fide belief justified relief under Section 80.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessee's activity amounted to taxable outdoor catering service under the Finance Act, 1994 and attracted service tax on the consideration received from the service recipients; (ii) whether the objection to territorial jurisdiction of the Allahabad Commissionerate could invalidate the proceedings when raised for the first time before the Tribunal; (iii) whether penalties under Sections 77 and 78 were leviable and relief was available under Section 80 on the plea of bona fide belief.

Issue (i): Whether the assessee's activity amounted to taxable outdoor catering service under the Finance Act, 1994 and attracted service tax on the consideration received from the service recipients.

Analysis: The definitions of caterer, outdoor caterer, and taxable service were read together to hold that supply of food by a person at a place other than his own, including premises provided by the recipient, constitutes outdoor catering service. The assessee received monetary consideration from NTPC and Lanco for providing such service in their premises, and the taxable value was the gross amount charged for the service.

Conclusion: The activity was taxable outdoor catering service and the service tax demand was sustainable against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the objection to territorial jurisdiction of the Allahabad Commissionerate could invalidate the proceedings when raised for the first time before the Tribunal.

Analysis: The objection was treated as one involving mixed questions of fact and law. The service was admittedly rendered within the territorial limits of the Allahabad Commissionerate, and the objection was neither taken at the earliest opportunity before the lower authorities nor shown to have caused any failure of justice. Guidance was drawn from the jurisdictional bar principle in Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Conclusion: The jurisdictional objection was rejected and the proceedings were not invalidated.

Issue (iii): Whether penalties under Sections 77 and 78 were leviable and relief was available under Section 80 on the plea of bona fide belief.

Analysis: The assessee had not obtained registration, filed returns, or remitted tax for the relevant period. The Tribunal found no bona fide belief on a true construction of the statutory provisions, and distinguished the cited precedent on facts. As the conduct did not justify exemption from penalty, the statutory penalties were upheld.

Conclusion: The penalties under Sections 77 and 78 were validly imposed and no relief under Section 80 was warranted.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed in its entirety because the assessee's activity was taxable, the jurisdictional challenge was untenable, and the penalty challenge was without merit.

Ratio Decidendi: A person supplying food in the recipient's premises for consideration falls within outdoor catering service and is liable to service tax on the gross amount charged, while belated jurisdictional objections and unsubstantiated pleas of bona fide belief do not defeat valid penalty proceedings.

---