9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 32X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted of both the respondents, it appeared that at the time of booking of halls for functions etc., amounts have been collected as rental amount from persons who book the hall and in addition, an amount as "donation" has also been collected in the name of Wellingdon Charitable Trust; that service tax has been discharged by the respondents only on the amount collected as rent and other charges collected after performance of functions; that however service tax has not been paid on the amount collected as "donation" on the ground that donations are made voluntarily by persons who book the hall for charitable purposes carried on by the Trust and that such amounts collected are not connected with the rents for provision of the hall. Accordingly, S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n merits, the lower appellate authority held that service tax is payable by appellant on Mandap keeper service, including value of "donations". The lower appellate authority also held that amount of portion being a fixed amount irrespective of person hiring the mandap defies logic; that a donation being voluntary payment and never to be a fixed amount always; hence amount collected in the guise of donation is nothing but rent charged for the mandap hired and based on these findings and conclusions lower appellate authority has restricted the demand to the normal period of limitation i.e. from 23.09.2007 to 30.11.2007 and also set aside penalty imposed under Section 78 in both the cases. Revenue is aggrieved by the impugned order and have fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity for the donations received by them for the period 1999-2000 to 2002-2003. There appears to have been no further follow up thereafter in the matter by the department. It is pertinent to note that subsequently both the units were visited twice by the internal audit of the Service Tax Commissionerate during which time also the point of dispute earlier communicated by the Superintendent in their letter dt. 14.07.2004 was not followed up. Only in the third audit conducted in 2007 did the disputed amount re-emerge and the SCNs have finally been issued on 22.09.2008. 7.2 Quite obviously, there has been considerable laxity on the part of the department. Nothing prevented them from issuing SCNs in 2004 itself when after collecting information, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
