2024 (5) TMI 521 - AT - Service Tax

Association services to members exempt under mutuality doctrine - no distinct service provider and receiver

M/s. Confederation of Indian Industry Versus Commissioner of Service Tax

CESTAT Kolkata allowed the appeal of an association engaged in promoting industry, trade and commerce. The tribunal held that doctrine of mutuality ... Levy of service tax - doctrine of mutuality - Club or Association Service - Convention Service - Business Exhibition Service - extended period of limitation - penalty - appellant is an association engaged in promoting industry, trade and commerce. Club or Association Service - appellant submits that they are a mutual organization and hence, no Service Tax is payable by them - HELD THAT:- The service in this case has been rendered by the appellant to their members. There is no service provider and service receiver exists in this case. When the service provider and service receiver are the same person, it is a 'self- service' and there is no tax on self-service. The contention of the appellant is agreed upon that the principle of mutuality applicable in this case and therefore, there is no liability to pay Service Tax in this case - there is no merit in the demand confirmed in the impugned order - demand set aside. Convention Service - Appellant submits that sometimes some seminars/workshops are not open to the general public and is only for members - HELD THAT:- When the appellant organizes meetings for their own members, it is not open to general public. However, the appellant is not providing any ‘service’ in relation to organizing of conventions. In this case, the principle of mutuality as approved by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of West Bengal v. Calcutta Club Ltd. [2019 (10) TMI 160 - SUPREME COURT] applies. Accordingly, no Service Tax is liable to be paid on the services rendered to their own members - the demand confirmed in the impugned order under “Convention Service” is not sustainable. Business Exhibition Service - Demand raised solely based on the gross figures available in the balance-sheet without giving any reason for the nature of the services rendered - HELD THAT:- The appellant contended that it is a settled position of law that onus of proving taxability is on the Revenue; tax has been demanded under Business Exhibition Service on the ground that 'it is not sponsorship service'; the Department needs to prove that the amount has been received from some business exhibitor in relation to business exhibition service, which has not been done. The submissions made by the appellant are agreed upon - appellant has not rendered 'Business Exhibition Service' and the demand confirmed in the impugned order on this count is not sustainable. Extended period of Limitation - HELD THAT:- The Department was aware of the working of the appellant and there is no scope for suppression in the facts and circumstances of the case - he issue involved is of interpretation of legal provisions and hence, the extended period cannot be invoked to demand Service Tax. Accordingly, the demand is liable to be set aside on the ground of limitation also. Penalty - HELD THAT:- As there is no suppression with intention to evade the tax established in this case, no penalty imposable on the appellant. Accordingly, the penalty imposed on the appellant in the impugned order is set aside. The impugned order is set aside - appeal allowed. Issues Involved:1. Club or Association Service2. Convention Service3. Business Exhibition Service4. Limitation and PenaltySummary:1. Club or Association Service:The appellant contended that as a mutual organization, no Service Tax is payable because there is no service provider and service receiver distinction; it is a 'self-service' scenario. They argued that the principle of mutuality applies, and the membership subscription is a contribution, not a payment for services. The Tribunal agreed, referencing prior judgments, including their own case (Service Tax Appeal No. 1207 of 2011), and set aside the demand under this category.2. Convention Service:The appellant argued that they do not provide services in relation to holding conventions, and such activities do not fall within the definition of 'Convention' u/s 65(105)(zzc) and 65(32) of the Finance Act, 1994. They cited CBEC Circular No. 51/13/2002 and previous Tribunal decisions to support their case. The Tribunal observed that conventions open to the general public do not qualify as 'Convention Service,' and meetings for members are covered by the principle of mutuality. Thus, the demand under this category was also set aside.3. Business Exhibition Service:The appellant contended that they did not organize business exhibitions and that the Department's demand was based solely on balance-sheet figures without specifying the nature of services rendered. They argued that such receipts could be termed as 'sponsorship service,' for which they are not liable. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the Department did not prove the taxability and that the demand based on balance-sheet figures was unsustainable. The Tribunal referenced their own case (Service Tax Appeal No. 2244 of 2012) and set aside the demand under this category.4. Limitation and Penalty:The appellant argued that the entire demand was barred by limitation, as the Department was aware of their operations and there was no suppression of facts. The Tribunal agreed, observing that the issue involved was the interpretation of legal provisions, and thus the extended period could not be invoked. Consequently, the demand was set aside on the ground of limitation, and no penalty was imposed.Conclusion:The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal filed by the appellant, concluding that the demands under all three service categories were not sustainable and that the entire demand was barred by limitation.