Respondent providing service of Pandal or Shamiana — On investigation it was found that respondent was providing the customers premises for organising marriage functions — They also provided furniture, fixtures, etc. for the same — Respondent of the view that during the time of dispute the marriage function was not treated as social function — Held, respondent’s activity of providing such facilities was treated as temporary occupation of Mandap and that marriage was still a social function duri<

Respondent providing service of Pandal or Shamiana — On investigation it was found that respondent was providing the customers premises for organising marriage functions — They also provided furniture, fixtures, etc. for the same — Respondent of the view that during the time of dispute the marriage function was not treated as social function — Held, respondent’s activity of providing such facilities was treated as temporary occupation of Mandap and that marriage was still a social function during the period of dispute.

 The respondent was registered for providing taxable service of Pandal or Shamiana. On investigation it was found that the respondent was allowing temporary occupation to the customers for organising marriage functions and for this purpose, besides permitting temporary occupations of the premises, the respondent was also providing furniture, fixtures, lighting, catering, etc. A specific provision w.e.f. 1-6- 2007 was made that social function included marriage and hence, respondent contended that for the period prior to 1-6-2007, marriages were not social functions. The respondent was of the view that giving their premises to their clients mainly for marriage functions would not be considered social functions prior to 1-6-2007 i.e., during the period of dispute and providing the service in relation to use of Mandap or providing Pandal or Shamiana service for marriage function was not taxable.

Held:

The activity of the respondent was treated as allowing temporary occupation of Mandap for some consideration and was treated as service in relation to use of Mandap which was taxable during the period of dispute. It was held that even though the period of dispute was prior to 1-6-2007, it could not be construed that marriage was not a social function prior to 1-6-2007.