Page 125 - GSTL_18th June 2020_Vol 37_Part 3

2020 ] MGF EVENT MANAGEMENT v. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI 339
evant returns with ulterior motive to evade Service Tax - Mode of operation
wilfully designed to evade Service Tax - Extended period invocable - Order-in-
original upheld - Section 73 of Finance Act, 1994. [para 10]
Appeal allowed
CASES CITED
Hero Cycles (P) Ltd. v. CIT — 2015-TIOL-280-SC-IT — Distinguished .................................... [Paras 3, 9]
SA Builders Ltd. v. CIT — 2006-TIOL-179-SC-IT — Distinguished ........................................... [Paras 3, 9]
REPRESENTED BY : Shri A.K. Batra, CA and Ms. Vibha Narang, Advo-
cate, for the Appellant.
Shri V.P. Pandey, DR, for the Respondent.
[Order per : C.L. Mahar, Member (T)]. - The present appeal has been
filed against the impugned Order-in-Original whereby the Learned Commis-
sioner has confirmed service tax demand of Rs. 2,47,31,755/- besides demanding
interest and imposing penalties under different Section 25, Section 78 of the Fi-
nance Act, 1994 respectively, arising out from three show cause notices, the de-
tails of which are given below :-

Show Cause Notice date Period of demand Amount of Demand in Rs.
21-4-2011 1-10-2005 to 31-3-2010 1,52,04,251/-
26-8-2011 1-4-2010 to 31-3-2011 44,22,031/-
20-9-2012 1-4-2011 to 31-3-2012 51,05,473/-

2. Brief facts of matter are that the appellant is operating parking areas
in five Malls by way of providing parking to the patrons/visitors of shopping
malls and collecting parking fees for which they have appointed an outside
agency (hereinafter referred to as the Third Party Agency) for managing the
parking area who is collecting “Parking Fees” on behalf of the appellants and
remitting the proceeds to the appellant. The third party agency raises the invoice
for operating cost and its management fee and charges Service tax on these
amounts and pays the remainder amount of gross collection on monthly basis
after deducting its direct operating cost and management fee. The entire revenue
generated by way of selling parking tickets belongs to the appellant. Parking in-
come is recorded as revenue by the appellant in its books of account. The appel-
lants claims that the income earned from parking fees belongs to appellants en-
tirely and nothing is remitted to the mall owners from the collections made or
otherwise. It is the claim of the appellant that it has no written contract with the
Mall owners and is not paying any amount by way of rent or space allocation or
by whatever name it may be called to the Mall owners for operating the parking
area. The appellant asserts that the only interest of Mall owners is that there
should be a hassle free parking and that the space available for parking should
be utilized to the maximum possible extent so that there is adequate parking
space for the vehicles, otherwise it will affect the popularity of the Mall and may
cause traffic chaos in nearby areas of the Mall which may affect the business of
the shops located in the Mall and ultimately the Mall owners. No service tax was
paid by the appellant on the income generated from the parking fees. An audit of
the appellant was conducted by the service tax department and on the basis of
the audit, the above three show cause notices were issued to the appellants alleg-
GST LAW TIMES  18th June 2020  125