Nirulas Corner House (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax

2. service tax demand has been made in the instant case by treating the appellant as a management consultant in regard to 'sagar ventures'.3. the contention of the appellant is that the agreement essentially was a management agreement and not a consultancy service agreement. we have been taken through various terms of the agreement and the learned counsel for the appellant has shown that the appellant is engaged to manage, sell and supervise the sale of food items. the appellant also supplies the materials or indicates the sources from whom the materials are to be procured.4. it is also being pointed out that from 2003 when franchises became liable to service tax, the appellant is being treated as a franchises and service tax is being allowed under that heading.5. the learned sdr would point out that the agreement, in particular clause 8(1) relates to technical assistance, advice on setting up of all the control systems, selection of staff and training etc. according to him, these would clearly fall in the category of management consultancy. to this, the submission of the learned counsel is that, even if these items are treated as taxable, demand would be on payment @ rs. 3,00,000/- per annum in terms of clause 8(1) and that amount works out only to rs. 2.5 lacs.6. perusal of the agreement brings out that the appellant has an active responsibility in regard to the management of the facility. consultancy element is very limited. the appellant is, therefore, directed to deposit rs. 2.5 lakhs within six weeks from today. upon that deposit, requirement for the pre-deposit of the remaining amounts shall stand waived.