Page 78 - GSTL_16 April 2020_Vol 35_Part 3

292 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 35
bet on winning horses. It is submitted that these book makers act independently
and in a sense are the competitors to the appellant.
8. It is further impressed upon that as per the aforesaid regulations the-
se bookies have to operate from the premises of the appellant and an enclosure,
accordingly, is provided to the bookies in the appellant’s club where the race is
actually conducted in the appellant’s premises or is telecasted in case the race is
conducted in the club other than the appellant’s club. The appellant charges fee
from the bookies in two components one is fixed amount under the head “stall
fee” and the other is a variable amount under the head “commission” which is
the percentage of the betting amounts collected by such bookies. However, both
these amounts are collected towards the stall fee only. It is submitted giving
stalls on rent is not business support service and therefore, the demand is liable
to be set aside. It is further submitted that the adjudicating authority below has
held that the appellant has provided the services of auditing of books of these
bookies which amounts to providing Business Support Services but the findings
are alleged as wrong. As the book-makers themselves have not outsourced any
of the activity, the auditors are engaged by the appellant only to avoid illegal
betting by the bookies, so that the auditor of the appellant may get the details of
the betting amount and the tax collected by the bookies. However, the nominal
amount collected from the bookies as audit charges are paid to the auditor. Since
the appellant is not retaining any amount from these audit charges, the activity
of auditing cannot be called as Business Support Service. Otherwise also, the en-
tire amount collected is in lieu of the stall being provided to the appellant, the
stall fee cannot be called as an amount charged for rendering Business Support
Service.
9. With respect to the income with respect to live telecast of races, it is
submitted that appellant allows other race clubs to give live telecast of the races
conducted at the appellant’s place for which they get share of income from the
other clubs and vice versa the appellants pays such share of income to such other
club whose race is agreed to be telecasted at the appellants club (inter-venue bet-
ting). In this transaction, no service is provided to the bookies, hence, the de-
mand is alleged to wrongly been confirmed under Business Support Services.
10. With respect to the amounts received towards royalty from the ca-
terers, the same is denied to be treated as rent and as such to be classified under
Renting of Immovable Property Services. It is submitted that appellant is provid-
ing the common/shared areas and facilities to the caterers inside the club prem-
ises against an agreement that caterers shall pay the club is specific consideration
in form of royalty since no ear mark space is provided to the caterers. The said
royalty received has wrongly been classified as the money received for providing
renting of immovable property services. Appellant has relied upon the Royal
Western India Turf Club Ltd. v. CST, Mumbai reported in 2015 (38) S.T.R. 811 (Tri.-
Mum.).
11. With these submissions, the demand confirmed for the respective
activities under the respective category, i.e., BSS & RIPS qua caterers is alleged as
highly unreasonable and accordingly, is prayed to be set aside. Learned Counsel
has relied upon Royal Western India Turf Club Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax,
Mumbai reported in 2015 (38) S.T.R. 811 (Tri.-Mumbai) to impress that the issue is
no more res integra. Board Circular No. 334/4/2006-TRU, dated 28-2-2006 and
Circular No. 109/3/2009-S.T., dated 23-2-2009 is also relied upon. Appeals, ac-
cordingly, are prayed to be allowed.
GST LAW TIMES  16th April 2020  198