2024 (11) TMI 1347

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....or the amount collected by the appellant in respect of three different premises for the period. 2. Learned Chartered Accountant appearing for the appellant pointed out that demands have been raised under the head of Mandap Keeper Services for the period prior to 01.07.2012 and later too. For the period prior to 01.07.2012 the Learned Chartered Accountant primarily contested the matter on the issue of limitation, for the period post 01.07.2012, learned Chartered Accountant pointed out that the services provided by them were not taxable as they were covered in negative list. He claimed that the appellant is a government authority carrying out statutory function entrusted to it under the 12th Schedule of Article 243W of the Constitution. 2.1....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the period of limitation in all these cases, notwithstanding the protestations of the learned ARs to the contrary, we are of the opinion that appellants being statutory bodies, they cannot be held to have suppressed facts with any intent to evade payment of tax. At the most, there would be some confusion or delay in understanding their liability to discharge service tax on that matter where a particular activity would be liable for service tax but certainly not accusations of suppression or wilful misstatement with intent to evade tax. In arriving at this conclusion, we are fortified by the decision of this Tribunal in Birhanmumbai Municipal Corporation v. CST, Mumbai-I [2017-TIOL-1846-CESTAT-MUM], in which decision one of us was a Member."....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....erial No. (i) to (iv) of Clause (a) of Section 66D. The services provided by the appellant do not fall under the clause (i) to clause (iv) of Section 66D(a). The Commissioner (Appeals) has denied the benefit of negative list to the appellant on the ground that the appellant has failed to establish that service was provided to non-business entities. No documents were produced by the appellant before Commissioner or before the Original Adjudicating Authority in this regard. 5. From the appeal papers, it is seen that the appellant has extracted the definition of support services as follows: "Section 65B(49) "support services" means infrastructural, operational, administrative, logistic, marketing or nay other support of any kind comprising ....