Page 82 - GSTL_16 April 2020_Vol 35_Part 3

296 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 35
“outsource” in that Circular does not alter the definition of Business Support
Service as being given in the statute. Therefore, the argument of the appellant
that if the bookmaker has not outsourced the services to the club, the services
cannot be Business Support Service, is not acceptable. It has already been ob-
served that the services which have been received by the bookmaker from the
appellant club are the Infrastructural Support for which the appellant is receiving
the stall fee and the support of accountancy, customer relationship punters being
available to the book-maker within the appellant’s Club), Inter-venue betting and
the structural support in the form of live telecast for the same all combined to-
gether are definitely the Business Support Services being provided by the club to
the bookmakers. Thus, we are of the firm opinion that the demands in hand have
rightly been confirmed and that the same is not in contradiction to M/s. Royal
Western India Turf Club Ltd. (supra) case.
22. Finally, coming to the demand for providing services to the cater-
ers. The said demand has been confirmed under the head of Renting of Immova-
ble Property. Admittedly, the caterer is allowed to roam around in the entire
premises of the appellant to offer the food and the catering services. The appel-
lant has provided a space to the caterer to put his staff within the clubs premises.
Thus, in the case of caterer, the club is not providing any other service either in
the form of cutlery crockery or in the form of serving boys. Hence, the service
provided by the appellant is merely Renting of Immovable Property Service. In
Royal Western India Turf Club Ltd. case, the said service was alleged and con-
firmed by the adjudicating authorities as Business Support Service, but was held
to be Renting of Immovable Property Service. The present show cause notice has
proposed the demand for service provided to the caterer as Renting of Immova-
ble Property Service only. Hence, irrespective the facts of the present case and
Royal Western India Turf Club Ltd. case are similar but the proposal in show cause
notice for the M/s. Royal Western India Turf Club Ltd. (supra) case and the present
case is altogether different. Hence, the adjudication is not completely binding on
the facts and circumstances of the present case.
23. For the period which is post-negative list era i.e. beyond the year
2012. Value of all the services other than those services specified in negative list,
provided or agreed to be provided in the taxable territory by one person to an-
other shall be levied to tax, as is emphasized in Section 66B, which was intro-
duced with Finance Act, 2012. Hence, for the post-negative list era, the services
need not to be classified specifically. Whenever there is a service rendered and a
consideration in lieu thereof, in whatever form, has been received, the same is
leviable to tax. In the present case, admittedly, the bookmakers were provided a
space inside the appellants’ premises. The appellant.... was arranging a live tele-
cast of the matches conducted in the Race Clubs other than the appellants’ own
club, appellant was also providing auditing facility and the catering services
were also made available to the bookmakers within the appellants’ premises.
Admittedly, the appellant was charging money from the bookmakers on two
counts; a fixed amount for stall fee and a profit based amount as commission.
These admissions make it abundantly clear that both the requirements of Section
66B stands fulfilled. Hence, we are of the opinion that there is no infirmity in
confirmation of demand for the post-negative period as well.
24. In view of the entire above discussion, we are of the opinion that
the demand qua receiving stall fee and commission from the bookies for services
in relation to business including infrastructural support as consideration re-
GST LAW TIMES  16th April 2020  202