Page 81 - GSTL_16 April 2020_Vol 35_Part 3

2020 ] HYDERABAD RACE CLUB v. COMMISSIONER OF CUS. & C. EX., HYDERABAD 295
property as has been held in the case of M/s. Royal Western India Turf Club Ltd.
(supra). It definitely amounts to Business Support Service.
18. The facts of the present case are different from M/s. Royal Western
India Turf Club Ltd. (supra) case in the terms that of providing stall to the bookie
in the club to be show cause notice in Royal Western India Turf case alleged this
service to be taxable under the category of renting of immovable property, where
the Tribunal held that it is more an infrastructural support than mere Renting of
Immovable Property. In the present case, the show cause notice has been issued
alleging that said service to be a Business Support Service. Hence applying the
said decision, we hold that the appellant has wrongly interpreted the decision.
No doubt, demand under renting of immovable property as far as the stall fee is
concerned is not maintainable but the said demand is well maintainable under
Business Support Service defined under Section 65(104c) of Finance Act, 1994.
19. Now coming to the demands with respect to the charges received
by the appellant from the bookies in the name of commission, but for providing
Inter-venue Betting Services, Auditing Services, live telecast services and for the
catering services being available to the bookmakers. As already discussed above,
in the given arrangement, the bookmaker can run his business if and only if the
club is able to provide him the aforementioned services. This is sufficient for us
to hold that the services are nothing, but the services are provided by appellants
in relation to the business of the bookmakers. The admission that accounting fa-
cility has also been provided by the appellant to the book-makers corroborates
the aforesaid opinion. The arguments of the appellant that auditors were provid-
ed only to discharge their statutory liability of maintaining the proper accounts
and the charges collected from the bookmakers against the auditors fee were
handed over as such to the auditors does not appear reasonable, as there is noth-
ing on record that in addition to stall fee and the commission amount, as men-
tioned in the impugned license any other amount has been paid by the book-
maker to the appellant. All these activities when taken together are covered un-
der the definition of Business Support Service, as mentioned above. Hence, we
do not find any infirmity in the order of the adjudicating authority below while
confirming these demands.
20. The decision of M/s. Royal Western India Turf Club Ltd. (supra) again
is not applicable to the present case because in that case the demand for the live
telecast facility was alleged to be a Broadcasting service, which came into tax-net
only in the year 2010 and the demand in that case was pre-2010. With respect to
this service to be an Intellectual Property Right Service, the Tribunal has held
that the demand for such service can be raised only when there is a transfer of
Intellectual Property Rights by the holder of such rights to the person who re-
ceives or uses the said Intellectual Property Rights. In the present case, there is
no transfer of Intellectual Property Rights from the appellant club to the book-
maker though there may be such service between the two clubs where Race is
being conducted in one club and is being telecasted in another club but the said
transaction is not the subject matter of the present show cause notice. It becomes
clear that the service of live telecast provided by the appellant club to the bookie
is neither a Broadcast service nor an Intellectual Property Right Service. But it is
definitely a Business Support Service for the book-maker provided by the appel-
lant club. Hence, we hold that demand has rightly been confirmed.
21. The Circular No. 334/4/2006, dated 28-2-2006 is also opined to
have been wrongly interpreted. We are of the opinion that mere use of word
GST LAW TIMES  16th April 2020  201