TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (12) TMI 1097
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s provided by the petitioner society to its members. The petitioners have also challenged an order dated 9.10.2007 passed by the adjudicating authority confirming the service tax demand of Rs. 71,43,582/with interest and penalty at the rate of 200% of the tax demanded. He also imposed a separate penalty of Rs. 200/per day or 2% of the tax not paid, whichever is higher. 2. The petitioner no.1 is a society registered under the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act and is engaged in the activity of maintaining a common effluent treatment plant at Vatva Industrial Estate, Ahmedabad. The petitioner no.1 provides the facility of common effluent treatment to its members through the medium of cooperative society. The case of the petitioners is that s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 37. Since it was found that the service provided does not fall under the category of business auxiliary service as alleged in the show cause notice dated 28.02.07, but it appeared to fall under the category of "club or association services" as defined under section 65(2Sa) of the Finance Act, 1994 from 16.06.05 onwards, a notice was issued to M/s. GES on 07.08.07 asking them to show cause as to why the service provided by them should not be categorized accordingly and service tax recovered thereon. In their written reply as well as during personal hearing, M/s. GES have made only two counter submissions viz. 1) The society does not have any independent existence or identit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to its members, came to be declared as unconstitutional by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sports Club of Gujarat Ltd. v. Union of India and Others reported in [2013] 64 VST 191. The Court held as under: "The learned advocate Mr.Ravani appearing for the Authorities i.e. Union of India, Commissioner of Central Excise, and Deputy Commissioner / Assistant Commissioner, Service Tax Cell, vehemently opposed the petitions and submitted that the Department has not accepted the aforesaid judgment. Learned advocate submitted that the Department has filed SLP before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the judgment is under challenge. Merely because t....