2018 (7) TMI 1601 - AT - Service Tax

Tax Appeal Dismissed: Snacks Not a Meal

The Tribunal held that the tea and snacks served by the appellants did not constitute a substantial and satisfying meal as required for tax benefits. ... Mandap keeper service - Interpretation of statute - whether tea and snacks served by the appellants while performing the service of ‘Mandap keeper’ amount to satisfy meal? Held that:- A snack cannot be equated to a high tea; for that logic, it comes rarely closer to a ‘substantial and satisfying meal’. Therefore, it is to be concluded that snack cannot fulfill the conditions of the food being substantial and satisfying - Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. Issues:Determining whether tea and snacks served by the appellants while acting as 'Mandap keeper' amount to a satisfying meal.Analysis:The case involved M/s. Woodlands Hotel (P) Ltd., which runs a chain of hotels. They were served a Show Cause Notice (SCN) alleging wrongful availing of Service Tax benefits and failure to pay taxes for a specific period. The SCN was confirmed by Order-in-Original, imposing an amount along with interest and penalty. The appellants contended that the tea and snacks provided during a certain period did not constitute a substantial meal. The Commissioner (A) upheld the order, stating that tea and snacks were not considered a substantial meal by common people.The appellants cited a Tribunal judgment in the case of Welcome Hotel, where high tea was considered a satisfying meal. The main issue was whether tea and snacks served by the appellants as 'Mandap keeper' amounted to a satisfying meal. The Departmental Representative argued that the lack of detailed descriptions of snacks in the invoices made it difficult to determine if they constituted a satisfying meal. The Tribunal observed that scrutinizing each invoice for details of items served was not necessary. As long as the invoices showed charges for catering services and the menu was agreed upon between the service provider and clients, it should be considered a substantial and satisfying meal.After hearing both sides and examining the case records, the Tribunal considered various definitions of snacks and concluded that snacks could not be equated to a high tea, which is closer to a substantial and satisfying meal. Therefore, the Tribunal held that snacks served by the appellants did not meet the criteria of being substantial and satisfying, unlike high tea. As a result, the appeal was rejected, and the operative portion of the order was pronounced in open court on 24/07/2018.