Tribunal confirms service tax demand on Mandap Keeper for hosting marriage functions

The Tribunal upheld the service tax demand on the appellants for providing services as Mandap Keeper, rejecting their exemption claim based on running a hotel. The Tribunal found that the appellants were renting out halls specifically for marriage and social functions, supported by separate booking records and terms and conditions. The demand was confirmed on the basis of allowing temporary occupation of a Mandap for functions, leading to the affirmation of the gross amount as cum-tax amount. The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, concluding that the appellants were indeed providing services as Mandap Keeper and disposing of the appeal accordingly.

---

---

Issues:
Confirmation of service tax demand for providing services as Mandap Keeper; Exemption claim based on running a hotel; Treatment of gross amount as cum-tax amount.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against an Order-in-Appeal confirming a service tax demand on the grounds that the appellants were providing services as Mandap Keeper. The appellants argued that they were exempt from service tax as they were running a hotel and not providing halls for social functions but for rent along with rooms. They contended that the demand was based on the gross amount received and should be treated as cum-tax amount. On the other hand, the revenue contended that the appellants were renting out halls specifically for marriage and social functions, supported by evidence of separate booking records and terms and conditions for booking. The Tribunal found that the demand was confirmed on the basis of providing services as Mandap Keeper, defined as allowing temporary occupation of a Mandap for official, social, or business functions for consideration. The Tribunal noted the specific finding by the adjudicating authority regarding separate booking records for social functions, which the appellants did not contest with evidence. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the demand for service tax, considering the appellants were indeed providing services as Mandap Keeper by renting out halls for marriage ceremonies. The Tribunal also affirmed the treatment of the gross amount as cum-tax amount, upholding the impugned order and disposing of the appeal accordingly.

---