Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai: In an appeal challenging the order passed by Commissioner of Service Tax VI, Mumbai, the bench of Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati, Member (Judicial) and Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) opined that appellant entered into agreements with cinema houses for payment of tickets booked through their platform, and collected convenience fee and paid service tax on the same. Appellant had not retained any amount to itself which was received from card companies. The Tribunal noted that it was admitted in the show cause notice that appellant was not raising any invoice to the card companies and opined that it was very simple in the accounting standards that unless invoice was raised, consideration was not collected. Therefore, it was very clear from the record that the appellant was not receiving any consideration from card companies.
Thus, the Tribunal opined that appellant was not providing any service to card companies and, accordingly, set aside the impugned order and allowed the present appeal.
Background
Appellant provided various services including facilities for the consumers to book online tickets of movies and other shows. For the said purpose, appellant provided an online ticketing platform under the aegis of . The said platform brought together the customers who wished to book tickets and the cinema halls or event holders who wished to sell their tickets. Therefore, for providing such a platform, appellant entered into contracts with movie houses and those who organize various events. The platform was connected with various banks and other payment gateways, and for providing facility of online booking of shows, appellant collected convenience charges/convenience fee and paid service tax on the said convenience fee. Appellant received amount towards ticket cost along with convenience fee and remitted the ticket cost to cinema house or event holder, as the case maybe.
Commissioner of Service Tax-Revenue observed that appellant was offering their online ticket platform to several credit card companies who promote their cards by allowing discounts or free tickets to the customers. When such discounts and free tickets were offered by credit card companies, the difference between the cost of the ticket and the amount collected from the customer against tickets was borne by the card companies. Thus, for allowing the card companies to extend offers of discount and free tickets, appellant had entered into agreements with various card companies.
Revenue observed that during 2010-11 to 2014-15, appellant collected around Rs 52.78 crores from the card companies and, therefore, appellant was required to pay service tax of Rs. 6,33,96,482. Thus, vide show cause notice dated 15-10-2015, the said service tax was demanded from appellant. Appellant contested the show cause notice by stating that as per the agreement, appellant was obliged to collect the actual cost of tickets either from the customers or from the card companies and subsequently, the same was paid to cinema houses. Appellant submitted that the agreement clearly mentioned that the card companies would reimburse appellant, all the amounts that were being availed as offers by customers. Further, appellant had paid the amount to the cinema houses and did not retain any amount to itself that was paid by card companies. It was stated that since the consideration was nil, the service tax on the said consideration would also be nil.
However, the said argument was not appreciated by Revenue and through the impugned order, the service tax demand of Rs. 6,33,96,482 was confirmed and equal penalty was imposed. Thus, appellant filed the present appeal before the Tribunal.
Analysis, Law and Decision
The Tribunal observed that the Revenue treated the amounts collected by appellant from the card companies as consideration for providing business support service by appellant to the card companies. Further, appellant entered into agreements with cinema houses for payment of tickets booked through their platform and collected convenience fee and paid service tax on the same. Appellant had not retained any amount to itself which was received from card companies and was intended to be paid to cinema houses. The Tribunal noted that it was admitted in the show cause notice that appellant was not raising any invoice to the card companies and opined that it was very simple in the accounting standards that unless invoice was raised, consideration was not collected. Therefore, it was very clear from the record that the appellant was not receiving any consideration from card companies.
Thus, the Tribunal opined that appellant was not providing any service to card companies and, accordingly, set aside the impugned order and allowed the present appeal.
[Bigtree Entertainment (P) Ltd. v. CST, Service Tax Appeal No. 87428 of 2016, Order dated 17-04-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Appellant: Vishal Agarwal with Ramnath Prabhu, Advocates;
For the Respondent: Suvir Misra, Commissioner, Authorised Representative for the Respondent
The post appeared first on .