Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Bangalore
Commissioner Of Central Excise vs Krishnapur Mutt on 5 August, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2003(157)ELT182(TRI-BANG), 2006[3]S.T.R.144, [2007]7STT179
ORDER G.A. Brahma Deva, Member (J)
1. Whether receipt of any consideration either by way of rent or in the form of 'Padakanika' for organising any religious function is liable to charge under the Service Tax Act, 1944 (sic) [Finance Act, 1994], is an issue to be considered herein.
2. The Department has demanded the Service Tax, charged interest and imposed penalty on the ground that the hall premises owned by the Krishnapur Mutt is a Mandap under Section 65(22) of the Service Tax Act, 1944 (sic) (Finance Act, 1994).
3. It was the contention of the Party before the authorities below that the hall belongs to Krishnapur Mutt and the Mutt is not charging any rent for the functions held in the hall and is not coming under the terms of 'Mandap Keeper'. The hall is used for religious purpose by the disciples of the Mutt and sometimes money is accepted as 'Padakanika'. The hall is given to the followers of the Mutt to perform function in the hall strictly free of rent and no rent is collected from the use of the hall. Hence, the hall will not come under the provisions of 'Mandap Keeper' as per Section 65(22) of Service Tax Act, 1944 (sic) (Finance Act, 1994).
4. The Commissioner (Appeals), in the impugned order, has observed that in the instant case, the Mutt is not giving the hall for any official, social or business functions but only giving for religious functions and is also not charging any rent, but sometimes, the followers are giving the money as donation or 'Padakanika' to the Pontiff of the Mutt and hence, the activity undertaken is not a taxable activity and do not attract service tax.
5. According to the Department, in almost all the cases, a uniform amount of Rs. 2,500/- has been collected from the clients and accordingly, the party is rendering taxable services by letting out the premises of the Mutt to the followers of the said Mutt for commercial considerations. A plea was also taken by the Department, as can be seen from the affidavit given by the assessee, that Mutt is giving the hall for social functions such as 'Shodasha Karma' (Brahmopadesha and marriage are two among the said Shodasha Karmas). These do not qualify to be religious ceremonies but are social functions.
6. Heard both sides who reiterated their respective stands.
7. We have carefully considered the matter. On going through the submissions made by both sides with reference to the facts, we find that the Mutt is charging Tadakanika' or some consideration for organising mainly religious functions such as marriages and Brahmopadeshas. It is very difficult to conceive the idea put forth by the Revenue that these functions couldn't be considered as religious functions but to be qualified as social functions. It is well settled position from the time immemorial that, marriage is sacred and sacrament as recognised under Hindu law. It is not a social contract as urged by Revenue. As can be seen from the records, since the Mutt is giving hall mainly for marriages and Brahmobadesams, it cannot be said that the mutt is collecting rent or Tadakanika' for social functions and entertainment. We find that the point at issue has been properly analysed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order holding that the activity undertaken by the party cannot be said to be a taxable activity. In the facts and circumstances and in view of the categorical findings given by the Commissioner (Appeals), we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. Accordingly, we do not find any substance in the appeal filed by Revenue. In the result, the appeal is hereby dismissed. The party is entitled to get consequential relief, if any.