Service tax demand on catering services dismissed as no suppression found and exemption benefits properly claimed

The CESTAT Bangalore held that extended period of limitation was not applicable as appellant disclosed transaction details upon summons and no suppression occurred when facts were known to both parties. The court ruled that service tax demand, interest, and penalty were unsustainable, noting that caterers had already paid service tax on gross amounts and appellant was entitled to small-scale exemption benefits and cum tax value benefits under relevant notifications and statutory provisions.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of services provided by the appellant.
2. Invocation of extended period of limitation.
3. Entitlement to small-scale exemption and cum-tax benefit.
4. Imposition of penalties under Sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.

Summary:

Issue 1: Classification of Services Provided by the Appellant
The appellant, M/s Karnataka Golf Association, engaged caterers for providing services to its members and deducted a percentage as a share for providing facilities. The Department issued a Show Cause Notice (SCN) alleging that this deduction falls under "support service of business or commerce" and demanded service tax under this category. The Adjudication authority confirmed the demand and imposed penalties. The First Appellate Authority partially allowed the appeal concerning services by M/s Sreenivasa Caterers but upheld the demand for M/s Swadeshi Caterers. The appellant contended that the transactions with both caterers were identical and that service tax had already been paid by the caterers on the gross amount.

Issue 2: Invocation of Extended Period of Limitation
The appellant argued that the demand was barred by limitation, citing that the Department was aware of the transactions since 2006. They referenced multiple audits and inquiries where the transactions were disclosed, and no SCN was issued until 2009. The Tribunal, referencing the case of Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai Vs. M/s Rani Meyyammal Hall, found that there was considerable laxity on the part of the Department and that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked due to the lack of suppression of facts.

Issue 3: Entitlement to Small-Scale Exemption and Cum-Tax Benefit
The appellant argued that even if the extended period could be invoked, they were entitled to small-scale exemption under Notification No. 6/2005 and cum-tax benefit under Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal agreed, citing the appellant's own case and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the M/s Kolkata Club case.

Issue 4: Imposition of Penalties
The appellant contended that penalties should not be imposed as the issues were interpretative, and there was no intent to evade tax. They cited various judgments to support their claim that penalties under Sections 76 and 78 are mutually exclusive and that there was reasonable cause for non-payment of service tax. The Tribunal found merit in these arguments and concluded that the imposition of penalties was not sustainable.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal found that the confirmation of the demand of service tax with interest and the imposition of penalties were not sustainable. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief in accordance with the law.

---