TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 1517
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eals) has rejected the appeal of the Appellant and has upheld the Order-in-Original dated 21.03.2016. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the Appellant, Municipal Corporation Mohali, is a sovereign local body. During the relevant period, an inquiry was conducted by the Department and a view was formed that the Appellant had been engaged in the "Selling of Space for Advertisement" to different parties and had not paid service tax on the amounts so received. The Department alleged that it was liable to pay service tax under the category of 'Selling of Space for Advertisement', taxable under Section 65(105)(zzzm) of the erstwhile Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994. On this allegation, a Show Cause Notice dated 06.05.2014 was issued....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as already dropped the demand of the impugned service in the Appellant's own case for the earlier period. He also submits that the impugned demand, being of the subsequent period involving the same service, is also not sustainable. 4.2 He further submits that the impugned demand pertains to period from April 2012 to June 2012, and during this period, no definition of 'person' was provided under the Service Tax Laws and the 'local body' was also not covered under the definition of 'person' provided under Section 2(42) of the General Clauses Act, accordingly, the activity rendered by the Appellant does not fall under the definition of 'taxable service' as provided under Section 65(105)(zzzm) of the Finance Act. In this regard, he places re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not? 7. We note that the period involved in the present appeal is from April 2005 to March 2010 and during that time, the activity of Selling of Space for Advertisement was taxable if a person provides service to another person. But in the present case, the Appellant being a local body, are not covered within the term "person" and consequently not covered under the definition of "taxable service". Further, we also find that this issue has been decided by the Principal Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Police, Jodhpur (supra), wherein the Tribunal has held that the State and the Police Department is not covered under the definition of a person providing the security service; and accordingly, the demand was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a. We note that the same issue was considered by the Tribunal in the case of Karad Nagar Parishad [2019 (20) GSTL 288 (Tri. Mumbai)], wherein the Tribunal held as under: "4. ------ but it is an advertisement tax which is a statutory levy and collected for display the advertisement by any person at any place whether the place owned by the Corporation or by any individual therefore the advertisement tax being a statutory levy cannot be chargeable to service tax." 9. As regards the invocation of extended period, we find that the demand pertains to the financial years from 2005-06 to 2009-10 and the Show Cause Notice was issued on 30.05.2011 which is beyond the normal period of one year as provided under Section 73 of the Fina....