I. TRIBUNAL
6. [2020-TIOL-1464-CESTAT-Mad.] M/s Hexaware Technologies Ltd. vs. Commissioner of GST and
Central Excise Date of order: 5th February, 2020
The refund
claim cannot be rejected for reason of error in mentioning the address on FIRC.
Further, the date of filing the original application should be considered for
the purpose of time bar and not date on the application filed after
rectification of defects
FACTS
The refund
claim is rejected on the grounds that the address mentioned on the FIRC is that
of the Mumbai unit instead of the Chennai Unit. Secondly the claim is
time-barred, computing the date from the date of submission of refund claim
after rectification of defects. The third ground is with respect to
non-submission of documents / FIRC.
HELD
With respect to
the first ground, the Tribunal held that the address of the Mumbai unit
mentioned in the FIRC document is only an error by oversight and rejection of
refund claim on this ground requires to be set aside. With respect to the
second ground, the Tribunal held that the period has to be computed from the
date of original submission of the refund claim and not from the date when it
is re-submitted after rectification. Further, with respect to non-submission of
FIRC, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority.
7. [2020-TIOL-1470-CESTAT-Del.] Sitq India
Private Limited vs. Commissioner of Service Tax Date of order: 22nd January, 2020
Investment
advisory services provided in relation to real estate cannot be classified as
real estate agent service
FACTS
The assessee is
engaged in providing non-binding investment advisory service to SITQ Mauritius
Advisory Services and other such entities. The service recipients do not have
any office in India and are located outside India. The service is classified by
them under ‘Management, Business Consultancy Services’. Since the entire
service income was on account of service provided by it to foreign-based
companies, they did not pay any service tax on provision of such services,
treating the same as ‘Export of Service’ in terms of Rule 3(1)(iii) of the
Export of Service Rules, 2005.
The Department
contended that the service is covered under ‘Real Estate Agent Service’ and
since the properties are not situated outside India it cannot be categorised as
‘Export of Services’.
HELD
The Tribunal noted
that the appellant renders investment advisory services in relation to
investments and not to any particular real estate project. It is advising in
respect of investment in companies in the real estate sector in the form of
equity / debt and not in real estate property per se. Further, the
advisory services provided are not restricted to advising in respect of
investments. It is wider in scope and also includes general economic and market
conditions, tax environment, etc. The appellant also advises on various funding
and investment structuring options.
Accordingly, it is held that the service provided is classifiable under
‘Management, Business Consultancy Services’, and therefore the service provided
to the foreign company is considered as export.
