Subscribe to the Bombay Chartered Accountant Journal Subscribe Now!

Exemption to specified services received by exporter of goods — Notification No. 31/2012-ST, dated 20-6-2012.

fiogf49gjkf0d
By this Notification, benefit for promotion of exports has been given which includes exemption of certain specified taxable services received by an exporter of goods and used for export of good, from the whole of service tax. As per the said notification, the exporter shall register himself u/s.69 of the Act, should be holding Import Export Code Number, should be registered with the export promotion council sponsored by the Ministry of Commerce or Ministry of Textile as the case may be and shall comply with procedural aspects specified in this Notification.

levitra

Partial reverse charge mechanism — Notification No. 30/2012-ST, dated 20-6-2012.

fiogf49gjkf0d
Notification No. 30/2012-ST, dated 20-6-2012 widens the coverage of situations wherein service tax is payable under reverse charge mechanism by including following additional services/situations:

In respect of services specified at Sl. No. 7, 8 & 9, this reverse charge mechanism shall be applicable only where service provider is a non-corporate entity and the service recipient is a corporate entity.

levitra

2012 (28) STR 39 (Tri.-Ahmd.) Glory Digital Photo Station vs. Commissioner Of C. Ex., Surat-I

fiogf49gjkf0d
CENVAT credit balance can be utilised to pay service tax demand arising out of adjudication order in view of the self assessment system under service tax laws.

Facts:
Short payment of service tax along with interest and penalty was confirmed against the appellants. The appellants did not dispute the short levy, and hence, utilised the CENVAT credit availed in the service tax return to make good the short levy. This was not considered by the department while computing the said short payment to make part payment of the demand under adjudication order. However, the original adjudicating authority rejected the utilisation of CENVAT credit, since there was no evidence of admissibility of CENVAT credit. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that due to self-assessment system under service tax laws, the role of adjudicating authority is limited to scrutiny and issuing SCNs and hence, there is no question of obtaining any approval for availment and utilisation of CENVAT credit. Further, the admissibility or inadmissibility of the credit cannot be the subject matter of the proceedings.

Held:
Noting the observations made by the Commissioner (Appeals), the issue was decided in favour of the appellants and the reversal of CENVAT credit was taken to mean payment of service tax payable as a consequence of adjudication proceedings.

levitra

Exemption on property tax paid on immovable property — Notification No. 29/2012-ST, dated 20-6-2012.

fiogf49gjkf0d
This Notification exempts taxable service of renting of an immovable property, from so much of service tax leviable thereon, as is in excess of service tax calculated on a value which is equivalent to the gross amount charged for renting of such immovable property less taxes on such property, namely, property tax levied and collected by local bodies. It is further clarified that any amount of interest or penalty paid to the local authority on account of delayed payment of property tax shall not be treated as property tax for the purpose of deduction from the gross amount charged.

levitra

Place of provision of Services Rules, 2012 — Notification No. 28/2012-ST, dated 20-6-2012.

fiogf49gjkf0d
The Central Government has notified Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012 which specifies the manner to determine the taxing jurisdiction for a service. Rules are provided in relation to:

(1) Place of provisions of services generally;

(2) Place of provision of performance based services;

(3) Place of provision of services relating to immovable property;

(4) Place of provisions of services relating to events;

(5) Place of provision of services provided at more than one location;

(6) Place of provision of services where provider and recipient are located in taxable territory;

(7) Place of provision of specific services;

(8) Place of provision of goods transportation services;

(9) Place of provision of passenger transportation services;

(10) Place of provision of services provided on board a conveyance.

levitra

2012 (28) STR 13 (Tri.-Del.) R. N. Singh. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad

fiogf49gjkf0d
Extended period of limitation cannot be invoked when benefit of section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 is granted since it meant acceptance of presence of bonafide intentions by the original authority.

Facts:
The SCN was issued on 01-10-2010 for the period 01-04-2005 to 31-03-2010. The appellants pleaded that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked in the present case since the Joint Commissioner did not impose any penalty by invoking section 80 on the ground of reasonable cause. Therefore, it can be conceded that there was no suppression or misstatement with an intent of evasion. Further, there were various Tribunal decisions laying down that in case of nonimposition of penalty with the finding that there was no intention to evade taxes, the analogy must be drawn with respect to extended period of limitation also.

Held:
Following various precedents, the appeal was allowed on the grounds of limitation by observing as under:

Service tax was not deposited due to unawareness and there was also findings of the Joint Commissioner of Service Tax regarding reasonable cause to extend the benefit of section 80.

Harmonised reading of section 73 and section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994, leads to conclusion that the appellants should be bonafide to take the benefit of section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. Therefore, once such benefit was extended to the appellants, it was not open for the adjudicating authority to invoke extended period of limitation. As such, the matter was remanded back to the original authority to quantify the service tax demand for the normal period of limitation.

levitra

(2011) 24 STR 618 (Tri.-Mumbai.) — Amalner Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nashik.

fiogf49gjkf0d
Appellant provided services taxable under banking and financial services — Amount of taxable service provided below Rs.4 lakh — Registration certificate surrendered taking benefit of the Notification 6/2005 — Department had duty to verify whether assessee rightly surrendered their registration certificate within a period of one year — Failure to take any action within prescribed time limit — Appellant cannot be questioned subsequently.

Facts:

The appellant provided banking and other financial services and were holding service tax registration certificate under the said category. However, taking into account the benefit under Notification 6/2005, the appellant surrendered the registration certificate to the Department, as their taxable service provided was below Rs.4 lakh. The Department alleged that the assessee wrongly availed the benefit under the said Notification and was liable to pay service tax along with penalty as there was willful suppression of facts.

Held:

Time limit prescribed under law for any action to be taken by the Department is one year from the date of surrendering the registration certificate — Department cannot question the same subsequently. The matter sent back to adjudicating authority to re-quantify the demand pertaining to the normal period. Appeal disposed of by reducing the penalty from Rs.5,000 to Rs.1,000.
levitra

(2011) 24 STR 635 (Tri.-Del.) — Peoples Automobiles Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur.

fiogf49gjkf0d
Appellant provider of business auxiliary service — Appellant claimed benefit under exemption Notification 6/2005 — Claim denied by the adjudicating authority on the grounds that the said services were provided under brand name — Tribunal held this contention as invalid and matter remanded for re-adjudication.

Facts:
The appellant, a direct selling agent for banks and non-financial corporation was held taxable under Business Auxiliary services. However the appellant claimed benefit under the exemption provided to small service providers by exemption Notification 6/2005, which was denied by the adjudicating authority stating that the direct selling agent used the brand name of the bank it served.

Held:
The Tribunal held that the appellant was eligible to claim exemption under the said Notification, as the banks were mere recipient of the services and the appellant did not provide any service by using recipient’s brand name. Also, the Notification did not put restriction with reference to the brand name of the service recipient, however, debarred the benefit to the service provider, if and only if the brand name of another person was being used for rendition of services. On this ground, the confirmation of the demand of the duty was set aside and the matter was remanded for re-adjudication.

levitra

2012 (27) STR 508 (Tri.-Mumbai) Synergic India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Pune-III

fiogf49gjkf0d
Erection, commissioning or installation services- When installation charges not separately collected, whether the activity would be covered under the scope of this service? Only the service element needed to be taxed, the matter was remanded for considering relevant records.

Facts:
The appellant, manufacturer of solar water heater system, sold these goods to dealers and customers on site. The appellant did not charge separately for installation of such system, but the dealers were charging installation charges. The department issued SCNs that the appellant was required to pay service tax on the activity of installation @ 33% on the total value, considering the abatement under notification no. 15/2004. The appellant provided the cost sheet of manufacturing solar system and the service component included therein. However, the adjudicating authority did not consider the same and confirmed the demand on the grounds that the appellant failed to provide the service component separately in the invoices. The appellant relied on the decision of Kaushal Solar Equipments Pvt. Ltd. 2012 (26) STR 561 (Tri.-Mumbai) wherein on identical facts, the matter was remanded back for quantification of service component.

Held:
The activity of installation was covered under erection, commissioning or installation services even when the same was not separately shown on invoices. The matter was remanded back to work out the service component from the data provided by the appellant in view of the Hon’ble Tribunal’s decision in case of Kaushal Solar (supra).

levitra

2012 (27) STR 479 (Tri.-Ahmd.) GAIL (INDIA) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara

fiogf49gjkf0d
Wrong availment of excess CENVAT Credit – In view of accounting mistake, the appellant being a public sector unit and having regard to the size and operations of the Company and the fact that the appellant had excess CENVAT Credit during the relevant period, section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 was invoked and penalty was set aside. Wrong availment of excess CENVAT Credit – Interest payable in view of Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in case of Ind Swift Laboratories Ltd. 2011 (265) ELT 2 (SC).

Facts:
The appellants availed CENVAT credit in excess on those services which were not covered under Rule 6(5) but once the department indicated the same, the appellants immediately reversed such CENVAT credit wrongly availed, but did not pay the interest under Rule 15 of CCR, 2004 r.w.s. 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944.

The appellant did not pay interest, in view of the interpretation of law prevailing during the relevant time wherein there were several decisions of the Tribunal and the High Court taking a view that interest was not payable if CENVAT credit was taken but not utilised. It was a fact that the excess CENVAT could not have been so utilised, as the appellant did not utilise credit more than the disputed amount during the said period.

The appellants prayed for waiver of penalty in view of section 80 as the mistake was bonafide.

Held:
Interest was payable on wrong availment of CENVAT credit in view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in case of Ind Swift Laboratories Ltd. (supra)

The appellants were a public sector unit and having regard to the size and operations of the appellants and the peculiar situation that there was an accounting error and that there was excess CENVAT credit with the appellants during the relevant period, penalty was set aside.

levitra

Notification No. 27/2012-ST, dated 20-6- 2012.

fiogf49gjkf0d
Vide this Notification exemption from whole of service tax is granted for services rendered to Foreign Diplomatic Mission or Consular posted in India for official purpose or for the personal use or use of their family members subject to the conditions mentioned in the said notification.

levitra

Abatement of Service tax — Notification No. 26/2012-ST, dated 20-6-2012.

fiogf49gjkf0d
This Notification has been issued in supersession of Notification No. 13/2012-ST, dated 17-3-2012 which provides for abatement in Service Tax in respect of following specified services at the prescribed rates, subject to conditions enumerated against each service:

The Notification will be effective from 1st July, 2012.

The Notification will be effective from 1st July, 2012.

levitra

Mega Exemption Notification — Notification No. 25/2012-ST, dated 20-6-2012.

fiogf49gjkf0d
This single consolidated Mega Exemption Notification has been issued in super session of Notification No. 12/2012-ST, dated 17-3-2012 which lists out 39 services which will be exempted from whole of service tax under the new service tax regime. The Notification has also defined the terms used therein at various places for the purpose of smooth interpretation. The Notification will be effective from 1st July 2012.

levitra

Central Sales Tax — Provision for first charge on properties of the dealer for payment of tax — Under local Sales Tax Act — Applicable to recovery of CST — Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and section 50 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994.

fiogf49gjkf0d
The petitioner being a financial institution raised question of law by filing writ petition before the Delhi High Court arising out of order of DRAT holding that Rajasthan Sales Tax Department has priority on the properties of the dealer for recovery of payment of tax payable under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.

Held

U/s.50 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, the State is having first charge on properties of the dealer for recovery of dues under the Act. Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act provides for assessment, reassessment, collection and enforcement of payment of tax including interest or penalty payable under the CST Act to be as if a tax, interest or penalty is payable under the general sales tax law of the State. Thus, for all ends and purposes, the mode of mechanism provided under the State Sales Tax Act would equally apply to the central sales tax to be collected under the CST Act. Thus, priority given u/s.50 of the RST Act to the recovery of local sales tax will apply with equal force to the recovery of central sales tax. The High Court accordingly, dismissed writ petition filed by the financial institution.

levitra

Revision — Jurisdiction — Assessment approved by Assistant Commissioner — Cannot be revised by another Assistant Commissioner — Section 67 of The Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969.

fiogf49gjkf0d
Facts

The dealer applied for grant of permission to pay composition in lieu of sales tax and the assessment was completed by accepting composition on the basis of xerox copy of the application for composition as the original application for composition was not available with the Department. The sales tax officer, following policy of the Department, sought approval of the Assistant Commissioner to pass the order and thereafter passed the assessment order. The Assistant Commissioner issued notice for revision of assessment order passed by the sales tax officer to pay tax as per schedule rate as the dealer was not granted permission to pay composition as required under the Act. The dealer filed writ petition before the Gujarat High Court challenging impugned notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax to revise the order of assessment passed by the sales tax officer with the approval of the Assistant Commissioner.

Held

The Assessing Officer based on composition order framed assessment order with the approval of the Assistant Commissioner. The learned Assistant Commissioner, while approving the impugned assessment order, did not raise any objection to passing of composition order. Thus it can be assumed that indirectly, he approved the composition order passed by the Assessing Officer. Once an order is passed with approval of the Assistant Commissioner, another Assistant Commissioner cannot sit in revision over such order. The High Court on merits further held that once the fact of filing of application is not challenged at the time of passing order of composition, subsequently the Department cannot seek to lay the fault at the door of dealer and state that as the application was not found on the record, the composition order could not have been passed. The Department is estopped from contending so. The High Court accordingly, allowed writ petition filed by the dealer and quashed the notice issued by the Department to revise the order. 12

levitra

(2011) 24 STR 611 (Tri.-Del.) — Intertoll India Consultants (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida.

fiogf49gjkf0d
Appellant entered into agreement with NTBCL to collect fees from the users of the bridge and also carry out various other related activities — Department alleged that the services be taxed under the head BAS — Appellant contended to classify their services under ‘Management, Maintenance and Repair of Immovable Property Services’ — Held that person liable to collect toll is liable to pay service tax under ‘Management, Maintenance and Repair of Immovable Property services’.

Facts:
The appellant was sub-contracted by M/s. Noida Toll Bridge Company Ltd. (NTBCL) for specified functions relating to operations of Delhi-Noida bridge. It was contended by the authority that the agreement entered with the appellant clearly pointed out various services to be provided by them taxable under the category of Business Auxiliary services.

Appellant argued that toll levied by municipal corporation is a duty and tax levied by the Government is exempt from service tax liability under Notification No. 13/2004- S.T.

Further, the appellant contended that they were not providing any Business Auxilary services (BAS). The said services if at all taxable are in the nature of ‘Management, Maintenance and Repair of Immovable Property service’.

The appellant submitted that the customer care services envisaged under BAS were not applicable to the facts of this case as there is no third party involved.

Held:
It was held that the persons who are using the bridge cannot be called customers of either the appellant or NTBCL as the same would not fit into the definition of customers as defined in advanced Black Law Lexicon. Also, the appellant cannot be taxed under Business Auxiliary services as it was very clearly evident that NTBCL was not the client of the appellant as the appellant was not promoting any services of NTBCL. The services were in the nature of ‘Management, Maintenance and Repair of Immovable Property services’ as correctly contended by appellant.

levitra

(2011) 24 STR 579 (Tri.-Del.) — O. P. Khinchi v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur.

fiogf49gjkf0d
Appellant provided different services relating to cleaning, gardening, maintenance, repairs, job work in PVC plant — Raised invoices giving details activity-wise — Show-cause notice and the adjudication order considered all services as composite — Appellant contended that impugned order is vague as detailed information relating to job orders were provided but not considered — Order held invalid.

Facts:
The figures depicted in the show-cause notice as well as adjudication order did not throw light as to what was the consideration received for different activities to bring them under the fold of law.

The appellant contended that since show-cause notice being basic foundation of any legal proceedings. For it to be valid it should have the substance of allegation and should be clear in all aspects.

Held:
Adjudicating authorities failed to pass a well-reasoned order. Neither did they speak on incidence of tax on each activity separately, nor did they test the activities of the appellant in detail to bring them under the tax net correctly. Appeal was allowed.

levitra

(2011) 24 STR 553 (Tri.-Mumbai.) — Texport Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Mumbai-IV.

fiogf49gjkf0d
Exporter of goods — Claimed refund of service tax paid on the technical testing and analysis service used in export of goods — No written agreement between parties — Exemption denied — Challenged by the appellant — Held that liberal view has to be taken for interpretation to reduce the cost of the goods exported — Taxes cannot be exported.

Facts:
The appellant filed a refund claim of service tax paid on the technical testing and analysis service, essentially used for export of goods claiming benefits under Notification No. 41/2007 as amended.

The refund claim was rejected on the ground that the condition mentioned in the Notification that there should be a written agreement with the buyer was not satisfied. However, the appellant contended that the letter of credit submitted by them can be issued by the bank only on the instructions of the customer.

Ratio in the case of Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi v. Convergys India P. Ltd., (2009) 16 STR 198 was relied upon by the appellant, wherein it was held that a liberal view should be taken in similar cases pertaining to exports.

Held:
It was held that the refund claim cannot be rejected only on the grounds that the exporter had no written agreement for the mentioned input service with the buyer. Non-fulfilment of the procedure cannot lead to denial of the benefits under the beneficial legislation provided for exports. It is settled law that taxes cannot be exported, hence the appeal was allowed.

levitra

(2011) TIOL 1508 (CESTAT-Del.) — Microsoft Corporation (I) (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, New Delhi.

fiogf49gjkf0d
In terms of a Market Development Agreement, a company of Singapore, i.e., MO, appointed appellant to provide various technical support services including marketing of products in India and to identify services to be provided by the appellant — Both MO and appellant were wholly-owned subsidiaries of Microsoft Corporation — Appellant claimed that services provided by it fell under export of services, for which it was not liable to pay service tax — Difference of opinion over this issue between Member judicial and Member judicial (technical) — The matter referred to the Larger Bench.

Facts:
The appellant was a subsidiary of Microsoft Corporation, Washington and provided product support services, consulting services, did marketing of Microsoft products, and other inter-company services.

The appellant claimed that the said services provided by them fell in the category of export of services for which it was not liable to pay service tax. It also claimed that the income earned on account of maintenance and repair of software was not chargeable to service tax in its hands.

The Revenue argued that no service was provided outside the defined territory, and hence there was no export of service at all made by the appellant.

Held:
The adjudicating authority held that as per the agreement, business support was provided by the appellant to the Singapore concern; and that such services were provided in India and were never provided outside India and therefore there was no export of service. According to the Member judicial, the principle of equivalence applied for sale of goods outside India should also be applied to services provided outside India. Therefore, in present case appellant’s services will not qualify to be export of services.

On the other hand, the Member judicial (technical) was of the opinion that while interpreting rules on such ambiguous subject it is necessary that an interpretation that is consistent to deliver the intention of the law-makers should be adopted. Accordingly, the business auxiliary services provided to promote sale for products of Microsoft operations in Indian market should be considered to be delivered outside India. According to the Member, the theory of equivalence did not exactly apply between taxation of export of goods and services. The above difference of opinion led to the matter being referred to the Larger Bench.

levitra

(2011) 24 STR 525 (Del.) — Shiva Taxfabs Ltd. v. Union of India.

fiogf49gjkf0d
Ambiguity on classification of polyester staple fibre manufactured out of PET scrap and waste as to whether it be considered as textile material or as an article of plastic. The Board put forward that the decisions in GPL Polyfils case shall not be a binding precedent in other matters — The said paragraph struck down by the High Court — Held that Circulars can be referred for guidance, but not as binding mandate — In case of adverse decision, no coercive action as to demand until stay application decided by CESTAT.

Facts:
Polyester staple fibre was manufactured out of PET scrap and waste bottles since the classification of the item involved technical aspect the writ petition by the High Court could not solve the issue.

The CBEC issued a Circular as to classification of polyester staple fibre manufactured out of PET scrap and waste bottles and it was contrary to the Tribunal decision in the case of GPL Polyfils, on the same issue. The Circular specifically instructed its officers that the Tribunal decision in GPL Polyfils was not a binding precedent.

Held:
As regards the classification issue it was held that according to paragraph 8 of the Circular, it is to be classified as textile material and not as a plastic article. With reference to paragraph 10 of the impugned Circular, the same was struck down by the High Court stating that the Circular shall not be binding. Further, it stated that the adjudicating officers must take into consideration the Tribunal decision in GPL Polyfils and applicability of the same should be looked into.

levitra

The appellant provided services to Government departments like Income-tax Department, EPFO, DCA, etc. — The Department demanded service tax for services provided to DCA and EPFO under ‘Management Consultants Services’ — Held, services provided to DCA and EPFO were taxable under the category of ‘Information Technology Software service’ — As regards services of issuing PAN cards, it was held that they were services provided in relation to sovereign function of Incometax Department hence not liabl<

fiogf49gjkf0d
(2012) 26 STR 147 (Tri.–Mumbai.) — UTI Technology Services Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai.

The appellant provided services to Government departments like Income-tax Department, EPFO, DCA, etc. — The Department demanded service tax for services provided to DCA and EPFO under ‘Management Consultants Services’ — Held, services provided to DCA and EPFO were taxable under the category of ‘Information Technology Software service’  — As regards services of issuing PAN cards, it was held that they were services provided in relation to sovereign function of Income-tax Department hence not liable as business auxiliary service.


Facts:

The appellant rendered services to various Government departments, namely, Income-tax Department, Department of Company Affairs, Employees Provident Fund, etc. For Income-tax Department they were undertaking the service of issue of PAN cards and for this purpose they used to print, supply and distribute application forms to the applicant, receive application in the prescribed form on behalf of the Incometax Department, validate the applications with the checklist provided by the Department and in case of any discrepancies, the applications were returned to the applicants pointing out the deficiency and for re-submission with necessary correction/rectification. On receipt of PAN from the National Computer Center of the Income-tax Department, the appellant would print PAN cards and issue the same to the applicants. The above service was sought to be classified under the category of ‘Business Auxiliary Services’. The Department made demand for service tax for the period of July 2003 to September 2004 on amount received as service charges from various applicants of PAN card. Further, for rendering service to Employee Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO), demand was made under the category of ‘Management Consultants Services’. Similarly, for services rendered to the Department of Company Affairs (DCA) towards E-Governance Project, also the demand was made treating the service as management consultancy.

Held:

In respect of services rendered for issue of PAN cards on behalf of the Income-tax Department it was held that they were the services provided in relation to sovereign function of the Income-tax Department of levy and collection of income-tax and it was not in relation to any business and hence issue of PAN cards was not leviable to service tax under ‘Business Auxiliary Services’. The services rendered by the appellant to the DCA were to manage and monitor the modernisation and computerisation of various operations and the services provided to EPFO were in relation to acquisition and installation, commissioning and system integration of the IT services. These activities were classifiable under the category of ‘Information Technology Software Service’ and not under ‘Management Consultants Services’.

levitra

Deduction for “Depreciation” in Works Contract A Dilemma

fiogf49gjkf0d
Introduction

Under Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 (MVAT Act, 2002), transactions of works contract are liable to tax. Works Contract is composite contract consisting of supply of materials and labour. In Builders Association of India vs. Union of India (73 STC 370)(SC), Hon. Supreme Court has held that Sales Tax can be levied only on value of goods and not on the total value. In case of Gannon Dunkerly & Co. (88 STC 204)(SC) Hon. Supreme Court further highlighted mode of arriving at value of goods in a works contract.

The State VAT Acts normally provide statutory method for arriving at taxable value of goods in light of the above judgment. This can be referred to as statutory method. Under MVAT, Rule 58(1) of MVAT Rules, 2005 prescribes the method for arriving at value of goods. The relevant portion is reproduced for ready reference.

“58. (1) The value of the goods at the time of the transfer of property in the goods (whether as goods or in some other form) involved in the execution of a works contract may be determined by effecting the following deductions from the value of the entire contract, in so far as the amounts relating to the deduction pertain to the said works contract:–

(a) labour and service charges for the execution of the works;

(b) amounts paid by way of price for sub contract, if any, to sub-contractors;

(c) charges for planning, designing and architect’s fees;

(d) charges for obtaining on hire or otherwise, machinery and tools for the execution of the works contract;

(e) cost of consumables such as water, electricity, fuel used in the execution of works contract, the property in which is not transferred in the course of execution of the works contract;

(f) cost of establishment of the contractor to the extent to which it is relatable to supply of the said labour and services;

(g) other similar expenses relatable to the said supply of labour and services, where the labour and services are subsequent to the said transfer of property;

(h) profit earned by the contractor to the extent it is relatable to the supply of said labour and services: …” (emphasis given)

Deduction for Depreciation

One of the deductions is for charges for obtaining on hire, the machinery and tools used in the execution of works contract (item (d) above in Rule 58(1)).

If machinery is obtained on hire, there is no doubt that deduction will be available for hire charges paid. However, it is also possible that contractor will have its own machinery and will be using it for execution of contract. An issue can arise, as to whether or not depreciation relating to such machinery is eligible for deduction under above category? The issue can be examined vis-a-vis into from the following judgments.

Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. State of Karnataka (34 VST 53)(Kar)

In this case Hon. High Court, in relation to the allowability of depreciation has observed as under:

“It is in the background of these further developments, we are examining the merits of the submissions made by Sri T. Suryanarayana, learned counsel for the appellant-assessee. On such an examination, while we find and as submitted by the learned Additional Government Advocate the word “depreciation” is conspicuously absent either in rule 6 particularly, Explanation 1 to sub-rule (4) of rule 6 or even in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Gannon Dunkerley’s case [1993] 88 STC 204 as it occurs on this aspect at pages 233 and 235, we are nevertheless inclined to examine the submissions made by Shri Suryanarayana, learned counsel for the appellant-assessee, for the reason that the entire exercise for the purpose of levy of tax under section 5B of the Act is only to ascertain the precise value of the goods in respect of which title passes from the contractor to the client on the execution of the work. The charge cannot be on anything over and above the value of the goods, not even by a pie ! Even assuming that rule 6 when read in its entirety does not contain the word “depreciation”, but nevertheless should necessarily take the hue from the permitted deductions as indicated by the Supreme Court in clause (d) occurring at page 235 of the judgment which reads as “charges for obtaining on hire or otherwise, machinery and tools used for the execution of the works of the Rules construed in this background and answer the question. We say so, for the reason that it is the goods of the assessee for the purpose of execution of the works contract, which the assessee otherwise, could have hired the machinery and tools, instead of utilizing its own machinery and tools and in the process of execution of the work, the machinery and tools are worn down and depreciate in value and as the end price, i.e., the value of the contract is fixed or determined by the contractor factoring this wear and tear to the machinery and tools as a consequence of using them for the execution of the works contract, the value of the proportionate wear and tear of the machinery which is otherwise identified as depreciation has to be necessarily permitted as a deduction on the premise that it is equivalent to the hire charges as is otherwise provided in clause (d) and for such purpose one has to understand the same even in terms of the language of Explanation I as quoted above and particularly, to be one within the scope of “other similar expenses relatable to supply of labour and services”.

We find the submission of Shri Suryanarayana, learned counsel for the appellant attractive enough for acceptance, for the reason that section 5B of the Act is only as a sequel to sub-clause (b) of clause (29A) of article 366 which reads as “a tax on the transfer of the property in goods (whether as goods or in some other form) involved in the execution of a works contract:”.

The Hon. Karnataka High Court held that depreciation amount is deductible expenditure before arriving at value of goods.

State of Kerala v. Thampi & Company (41 VST 107)(Ker)

In this case Kerala High Court was also dealing with similar controversy. Hon. Kerala High Court held that the claim is non-admissible, observing as under:

“Depreciation has a definite meaning and content and its rates are varying both for the purpose of income-tax and for preparing profit and loss account and balance sheet under the Companies Act. Therefore, if the Legislature ever intended to provide for deduction of depreciation in the computation of taxable turnover on works contract, we are sure that it would have been specifically provided in section 5C along with other deductions specifically provided. If the Tribunal’s reasoning that depreciation is also covered by sub-clause (2) of section 5C(1) under the head “charges otherwise incurred on machinery and tools for the execution of works contract”, then the provision becomes vague inasmuch as what is the rate of depreciation to be granted and whether it should be straight line method or written down value method, should have been mentioned in the section itself. In the absence of any specific provision in section 5C, we feel depreciation on machinery or tools is not eligible for any deduction in the computation of taxable turnover on works contract. Besides this, in our view, “charges for obtaining on hire or otherwise” in sub-clause (c)(ii) can only mean charges paid for obtaining machinery or tools under any other arrangement other than hire. In other words, if the charges are paid on any other terms, i.e., other than on hire arrangement for availing of the facility of machinery and tools, then only such charges are eligible for deduction, which certainly does not include depreciation because notional expenditure in the form of amortisation of cost of machinery and tools owned by the contractor is not visualised in section 5C(1)(c)(ii) of the Act.”

Thus, the situation has become debatable. In this judgment of Kerala High Court, the earlier judgment of Karnataka High court in Larsen & Toubro Ltd. (cited  supra) was not cited, and not considered. Had it been the case, it may have made a difference.

Conclusion
When Hon. Supreme Court intended to allow hire charges towards machinery, on same parity, depreciation needs to be allowed. Depreciation is nothing but writing off of sum spent earlier, in part, over a certain number of years. Therefore, with due respect, it can be said that the judgment of Kerala High Court requires reconsideration.  It is expected that the issue will be resolved at the earliest.

REVERSE CHARGE MECHANISM UNDER SERVICE TAX

fiogf49gjkf0d
Amidst tremendous resistance from the business community as well as professionals, the Government has expanded the scope of reverse charge mechanism to a significant extent and thereby fastened the onus of paying service tax on the recipients of various services especially by the corporate sector irrespective of whether the service provider is covered by the threshold exemption limit of Rs 10 lakh or he is already discharging the obligation of service tax fully.

History and background:
Reverse charge was first attempted to be introduced in the service tax law as early as in 1997, on the services of clearing and forwarding agents and those of goods transport operators. This was introduced vide section 68(2) of the Finance Act, 1994 (the Act) read with Rule 2(1)(d) of the Service Tax Rules (the Rules). When every person engaging a clearing and forwarding agent and every person paying or liable to pay freight either himself or through his agent for transportation of goods by road in a goods carriage respectively, was responsible for getting registered, discharging the obligation of payment of service tax. However, since the liability on recipients of these two services was fixed merely by introducing the machinery provisions in Rule 2(1)(d) of the Rules, it was challenged. The Readers may recall that the Supreme Court in Laghu Udyog Bharati & Anr. v. UOI & Others 1999 (112) ELT 365 (SC)/2006 (2) STR 276 (SC) ruled that provisions of Service Tax Rules, 1994 viz. Rule 2(d)(xii) and (xvii) of the Rules (as it prevailed then) in so far as it makes the persons other than the clearing and forwarding agents or goods transport operators responsible for collecting service tax were ultra vires the Finance Act, 1994 itself and such sub-rules were accordingly struck down. Later indeed, to overcome the implications of this decision wherein tax collected was ordered to be refunded, the Finance Act, 2000 retrospectively amended these provisions to validate collection of service tax made from recipients of these services. Further, the services of goods transport operators were exempted from 02/06/1998 and later only from 01/01/2005, the Finance (No.2) Act, 2004 reintroduced the services of goods transport agency (GTA). It is to be noted here that enabling provisions under section 68(2) were incorporated with effect from 16/10/1998 vide Finance (No.2) Act, 1998. However, Notification No.36/2004-ST was issued only on 31/12/2004 which notified certain services whereby recipients of notified services were made liable for payment of service tax. In the year 2005, in addition to the recipients of GTA, the liability to register and pay service tax was also fixed on mutual funds for distribution fee paid to mutual fund distributors, insurance companies in respect of commission paid to insurance agents and later on, sponsoring body corporates or firms located in India.

Service tax liability of recipients of services provided from outside India:

In terms of the provisions of Rule 2(1)(d)(iv) of the Rules r.w.s. 68(2) of the Act, the liability of service tax was attempted to be fastened also on the recipient of taxable services provided from a person from a country other than India, with effect from 16/08/2002. In the absence of requisite provision in the Act, the levy on such services was disputed. Even after notifying such services in the Notification No.36/2004-ST referred above, the controversy continued. However, with effect from 18/04/2006 when section 66A was introduced in the Act, creating a charge of service tax on a person receiving taxable services in India provided by a person from a country other than India, the person receiving such services has been liable for service tax. For determining the liability in respect of various taxable services, the Government also prescribed the Taxation of Services (Provided from Outside India and Received in India) Rules, 2006 (Import Rules for short) to come into effect from 19/04/2006. These rules along with section 66A have been in force till 30/06/2012 i.e. till the onset of the newly introduced negative list based taxation of services. A tremendous amount of controversy and consequential litigation occurred for the application of reverse charge on taxable services provided from outside India to a person in India between the period 16/08/2002 and 18/04/2006, i.e. the date on which section 66A was introduced. The controversy however, achieved finality with the Bombay High Court’s decision in the case of Indian National Shipowners’ Association vs. UOI 2009 (13) STR 235 (Bom) and upheld by the Supreme Court in 2010 (17) STR OJ57 (SC). The Court held that only from the date of the introduction of section 66A, service tax liability could be fastened on the recipients located in India, for the services received from outside India.

Reverse Charge: Under the new “negative list” based taxation effective from 1st July, 2012:

Reverse charge as it existed under the erstwhile selective levy of services till 30.06.2012 continues under the new system of taxation also both in case of specified services provided in India and in case of services provided from outside India. As discussed above, section 68(2) of the Act is the applicable provision whereby reverse charge i.e. liability to pay service tax is fastened on the recipient of a service. Section 68 is reproduced below:

“68 (1) Every person providing taxable service to any person shall pay service tax at the rate specified in section 66B in such manner and within such period as may be prescribed.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1), in respect of such taxable services as may be notified by the Central Government in the Official Gazette, the service tax thereon shall be paid by such person and in such manner as may be prescribed at the rate specified in section 66B and all the provisions of this Chapter shall apply to such person, as if he is the person liable for paying the service tax in relation to such service.

Provided that the Central Government may notify the service and the extent of service tax which shall be payable by such person and the provisions of this Chapter shall apply to such person to the extent so specified and the remaining part of the service tax shall be paid by the service provider.”

In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of section 68, the Government earlier notified some services vide Notification No.36/2004-ST dated 31/12/2004 (as already discussed above) which now with effect from 01/07/2012 is superseded by a new Notification No.30/2012-ST dated 20/06/2012 whereby in addition to the taxable services provided from outside India and services of insurance agents, goods transport agencies, sponsorship services, leasing services of mutual fund distributors, a few other services are also notified for which recipients are made liable for service tax and in some cases, partial reverse charge is introduced, whereby both service provider and service recipient are jointly responsible for tax payment for the proportion respectively specified for each of them in the said Notification No.30/2012-ST as discussed below:

In case of the following services notified as specified services, the service recipient is held as the person liable for payment of service tax to the Government.

Taxable services provided or agreed to be provided by:

i) An insurance agent to a person carrying on insurance business.
ii) A goods transport agency for transportation of goods by road, where freight is paid by:

(a) a factory registered or governed by the Factories Act;
(b) a registered society;
(c) any co-operative society established by or under any law;
(d) a registered excise dealer;
(e) anybody corporate established by or under any law; or
(f)    any registered/unregistered partnership firm including association of persons.

  •    Services provided by a GTA for transportation of vegetables, eggs, milk, food grains or pulses is exempted vide entry 21(a) and goods where the gross amount charged on a consignment in a single goods carriage does not exceed Rs. 1,500/- or goods for a single consignee does not exceed Rs. 750/-are exempted vide entry 21(b) in Notification No.25/2012-ST dated 20/06/2012.

  •    It may further be noted that service tax is payable on 25% of freight amount and person paying freight or liable for paying for services of GTA would be treated as the receiver of service for the purpose of reverse charge.

iii)    By way of sponsorship to any body corporate or partnership firm located in taxable territory.

Note: The following new services are now added in the said Notification No.30/2012-ST:

iv)    Arbitral Tribunal to any business entity located in taxable territory.

  •    “Business entity” as per section 65B(17) means “any person ordinarily carrying out any activity relating to industry, commerce or any other business or profession”.

v)    An advocate whether as individual or a firm of advocates providing legal services to any business entity located in the taxable territory.

  •    “Legal service” as per Rule 2(cca) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 (The Rules for short) means “any service provided in relation to advice, consultancy or assistance in any branch of law, in any manner and includes representational services before any Court, Tribunal or authority.”

  •     Services by arbitral tribunal or by individual advocate or a firm of advocates to any person other than a business entity or business entity with a turnover not exceeding rupees ten lakh are exempted vide entry 6(a) and (b) of Notification No.25/2012-ST.

vi)    Government or local authority by way of support services to any business entity located in the taxable territory except in the cases of:
(a)    Renting of immovable property by the Government
(b)    Speed post expenses, parcel post, life insurance and agency services provided to a person other than Government.
(c)    Port and airport in relation to vessel or an aircraft inside/outside the precincts of a port or an airport
(d) Transport of goods or passengers.

  •     Renting of immovable property for the above purpose as per Rule 2(f) of the Rules means “any service provided or agreed to be provided by renting of immovable property or any other service in relation to such renting.”
  •     “Support services” as per section 65B(49) means “infrastructural, operational, administrative, logistic, marketing or any other support of any kind comprising functions that entities carry out in ordinary course of operations themselves but may obtain as services by outsourcing from others for any reason whatsoever and shall include advertisement and promotion, construction or works contract, renting of immovable property, security, testing and analysis”.

  •     It is clarified in the “education guide” issued by the Government that ‘Government’ includes both Central and State Governments. A statutory body, corporation or an authority created by the Parliament or a State Legislature is neither Government nor a local authority.

  •    “Local authority” as per section 65B(31) means-

(a)    a Panchayat as referred to in clause
(d)    of article 243 of the Constitution;
(b)    a Municipality as referred to in clause
(e)    of article 243P of the Constitution;
(c)    a Municipal Committee and a District Board, legally entitled to, or entrusted by the Government with the control or management of a municipal or local fund;
(d)    a Cantonment Board as defined in section 3 of the Cantonment Act, 2006 (41 of 2006);
(e)    a regional council or a district council constituted under the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution;
(f)    a development board constituted under article 371 of the Constitution; or
(g) a regional council constituted under article 371A of the Constitution.”

(vii)    a director of a company to the said company. (see note)
(viii)    Hiring of a motor vehicle designed to carry passengers to any person who is not in similar line of business.
(ix)    Supply of manpower for any purpose or security services. (see note)

  •     Supply of manpower as per Rule 2(g) of the Rules means supply of manpower, temporarily or otherwise to another person to work under his superintendence or control.

  •    Security for the above purpose as per Rule 2(fa) of the Rules means services relating to the security of any property whether movable or immovable or of any person, in any manner and includes the services of investigation, detection or verification, of any fact or activity.

(x)    Service portion in execution of works contract:

  •     Works contract as per section 65B(54) means “a contract wherein transfer of property in goods involved in the execution of such contract is leviable to tax as sale of goods and such contract is for the purpose of carrying out construction, erection, commissioning, installation, completion, fitting out, repair, maintenance, renovation, alteration of any movable or immovable property or for carrying out any other similar activity or a part thereof in relation to such property.”

  •     In this case, it may also be noted that Notification No.24/2012-ST dated 06/06/2012 has provided for alternate method of valuation by providing presumptive rate by introducing Rule 2A in the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006 from 01/07/2012.

Note-1: In case of the three services listed at (viii),
(ix)    and (x), the liability to pay service tax is fastened only when the services are provided by any individual, HUF or partnership firm registered or not including association of persons located in a taxable territory to a business entity registered as body corporate located in the taxable territory.

Note-2: Services of director and the words “or security services” along with manpower supply have been inserted only with effect from 07/08/2012 vide Notification No.45/2012-ST.

(xi)    Taxable service provided or agreed to be provided by any person who is located in a non-taxable territory and received by any person located in the taxable territory.

  •    As discussed above, reverse charge mechanism, earlier in terms of the erstwhile section 66A, applied to the services provided or to be provided by a person outside India and received by a person in India. Now with effect from 01/07/2012, to determine the liability of the recipient vis-à-vis various types of services, the Government has prescribed Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012 (POP Rules for short) in place of Import Rules (as well as Export Rules).

  •    “Taxable territory” as per section 65B(52) means “the territory to which the provisions of this Chapter apply.”

  •    Non-taxable territory as per section 65B(35) means “the territory which is outside the taxable territory.”

  •     ‘India’ as per section 65B(27) means –

(a)    the territory of the Union as referred to in clauses (2) and (3) of article 1 of the Constitution;
(b)    its territorial waters, continental shelf, exclusive economic zone or any other maritime zone as defined in the Territorial Waters,
Continental Shelf, Exclusive Economic Zone and other Maritime Zones Act, 1976 (80 of 1976);
(c)    the seabed and the subsoil underlying the territorial waters;
(d)    the air space above its territory and territorial waters; and
(e)    the installations, structures and vessels located in the continental shelf of In dia and the exclusive economic zone of

India, for the purposes of prospecting or extraction or production of mineral oil and natural gas and supply thereof.”

  •     As under the earlier system prevailing till 30/06/2012, an individual recipient receiving any service in relation to any purpose other than commerce or any other business or profession, would not be covered by liability under reverse charge as the same is exempted by entry 34 of the exempted Notification No.25/2012-ST. By this entry, even the Government, a local authority, a Government authority and an entity registered under section 12AA of the Income Tax Act for the purpose of providing charitable activities (as defined in the said Notification 25/2012-ST) also are declared exempt.

Partial Reverse Charge for 3 services only:

Except for the services listed above at (viii), (ix) and (x) viz. services of renting of motor vehicle, supply of manpower or security service and service in execution of works contract, the entire or 100% amount of service tax payment liability vests in the recipient of services. Partial reverse charge i.e. both the service provider and the recipient of services having liability for service tax exists only for 3 services in the following proportion as notified:

An explanation in Notification No.30/2012-ST is provided to clarify that in case of Works Contract services, where both service provider and recipient thereof are the persons liable to pay tax, the service recipient has the option of choosing the valuation method as per choice, independent of valuation method adopted by the provider of service.

Some Issues:
1.    Is reverse charge applicable to invoices raised by the vendors in July 2012 or later for the services completed in June, 2012 or when the payment for the invoice is made post 1st July, 2012?

For any service, where point of taxation is determined and liability is fastened prior to 01/07/2012 in terms of Point of Taxation Rules, 2011 (POT Rules for short), the new provisions of reverse charge do not apply. For instance, if service was completed prior to 30th June, 2012 and invoice also was raised before such date, the point of taxation is determined to be the date of the invoice, if the invoice was raised within the stipulated time limit of 30 days in terms of Rule 4A of the Rules. In the scenario, even if the payment is made post 30th June, 2012, reverse charge would not apply to the receiver for such payment.

2.    Whether in the following situations, the liability under reverse charge would arise for the recipient?

  •     When a partnership firm provides works contract services to another partnership firm.

  •     When manpower supply services are provided by a private limited company to another private limited company.

  •     A firm of solicitors provides service to a proprietary business concern.

In the first two situations, recipient does not have liability under reverse charge. In the first situation, it is so because except for body corporates, liability is not cast on any other person in case of works contract services. In the second situation, there is no liability because the service provider is a company, the receiving corporate body does not have the liability. In this case, the provider would have to charge service tax and the receiver would pay him as per the invoiced amount unless the provider is covered by threshold exemption under Notification No.33/2012-ST. In the third situation, the liability to pay tax would vest in the recipient as the recipient is a business entity if his turnover is more than Rs.10 lakh i.e. when he is not covered by the threshold exemption limit and provider is a solicitor firm (solicitors are necessarily advocates). However, it may be noted that under Notification No.25/2012-ST, services by Arbitral Tribunal or individual advocate or a firm of advocates provided to any person other than business entity or a business entity with a turnover upto Rs. 10 lakh in the preceding financial year are exempted at entry no.6(b) as discussed above. Therefore, if the proprietary business concern is within the threshold turnover limit, no service tax is payable by such proprietor under reverse charge. The definition of business entity is provided above.

3.    When does the liability to pay service tax under partial reverse charge arise both for the provider of service as well as for the receiver?

This is governed by POT Rules. Service provider would have to pay service tax either depending on the date of invoice or the date of receipt of consideration for service whichever is earlier. The recipient as per the said rules would pay, considering the date of payment made for the service. However, if no payment for the invoice is made within six months, point of taxation would be the date of invoice in accordance with Rule 7 of the said POT Rules.

4.    Whether the service tax liability under reverse charge, partial or full, can be discharged by the recipient of services using balance in the CENVAT credit account?

No. CENVAT credit balance cannot be used for discharging the liability under reverse charge in terms of Rule 3(4) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR). CENVAT credit in terms of this rule can be utilised for payment of excise duty or amount payable on removal of inputs or capital goods or amount payable under Rule 16(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and for payment of service tax on any output service. When a person pays service tax as a receiver of service, it is neither towards output service nor for any excise duty payment or an amount payable as stated above. Further, with effect from 01/07/2012, an express provision vide insertion of an explanation is also made below the said Rule 3(4), providing that CENVAT credit cannot be used for payment of service tax in respect of services where the person liable to pay tax is a service recipient. Also Rule 2(p) of CCR specifically excludes the service where the whole of service tax is liable to be paid by the recipient of service from the definition of output service.

5.    When a service provider is located in Jammu and Kashmir and provides taxable service to a receiver located in taxable territory, whether the recipient is liable for service tax?

This is to be determined in terms of the provisions contained in section 66C of the Act read with the rules prescribed in this regard viz. Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012 (POP Rules, for short) as notified vide Notification No.28/2012-ST dated 20/06/2012. For instance, if the service provided by J&K service provider in the above question is of architect’s service in relation to immovable property situated in Chandigarh, the recipient located anywhere in the taxable territory would be liable to pay service tax under reverse charge as Rule 5 of the said POP Rules provides that place of provision of service is the place where the immovable property is located. Thus, depending on the type of service, the applicable POP Rule would determine the place of provision to determine whether service tax is payable by the recipient located in taxable territory from a person located in non-taxable territory including services received from outside India.

6. (a) When a small service provider is availing benefit of Rs. 10 lakh exemption under Notification No.33/2012-ST dated 20/06/2012 from service tax leviable under section 66B of the Act and has provided services to a body corporate, whether the receiver is liable for service tax?

(b)    What would be the answer in case of services for which partial reverse charge is prescribed?

For this purpose, we may refer the Notification No.33/2012-ST. It contains a non-obstante clause which reads as:

“Nothing contained in this Notification shall apply to:
(i)    ……………..
(ii)    Such value of taxable services in respect of which service tax shall be paid by such person and in such manner as specified under sub-section (2) of section 68 of the said Finance Act read with the Service tax Rules, 1994.”

Section 68(2) referred to in the above clause including proviso therein is reproduced above. Both the provisions read together indicates that the threshold limit does not apply to the service receiver liable for service tax in terms of section 68(2) read with Notification No.30/2012-ST and Rule 2(1)(d) of the Service Tax Rules.

The Government also has clarified in the Guidance Note as follows:

“Liability of the service provider and the service recipient are different and independent of each other. Thus, in case the service provider is availing exemption owing to turnover being less than Rs.10 lakh, he shall not be obliged to pay any tax. However, the service recipient shall have to pay service tax which he is obliged to pay under the partial reverse charge mechanism”

Thus, the clarification answers that in both the situations, whether having full or partial liability, service tax is payable by the recipient irrespective of the threshold exemption availment by the provider. The recipient would discharge the liability of his part.

7.    Whether the credit of service tax paid under reverse charge is available to the service recipient? If the recipient is not able to utilise the credit, would the amount paid be refunded?

The availability of credit is subject to provisions of CCR. If the service on which service tax is paid under reverse charge satisfies the definition of “input service” as provided in Rule 2(l) of the CCR and based on GAR-7 challan evidencing payment of service tax, credit can be availed. Rule 5B is introduced in CCR for granting refund to service provider providing services are notified under section 68(2) of the Act and the service provider unable to utilise CENVAT credit availed on inputs and input services for service tax payment on output services subject to procedure, conditions and safeguards to be prescribed.

Comment: In the matter of refund, the above Rule 5B of CCR indicates that the refund would be available to service providers of services notified in section 68(2) and not to recipients liable under reverse charge. Hence, if the recipient corporate body of, say, works contract services and manpower supply services is engaged in pure “trading activity” which is not liable for service tax, such trader cannot claim refund and so would be the manufacturing body corporate manufacturing products which are exempt or have Nil rate of duty. [The newly intro-duced Rule 5A in CCR refers to refund for manufacturers only on inputs].

8.    (a) In case of services provided by a director of the company to the company, now that Notification No.45/2012-ST has introduced reverse charge with effect from August 07, 2012, if a director receives sitting fees from more than one company, whether all the companies where a person provides service as a director would separately pay service tax on his sitting fees?

(b)    How about remuneration to managing director, whole-time directors or executive directors?

In principle, all the companies in which a person is a director would independently pay service tax as a recipient, in respect of services received from all its directors. As regards the payment made to the managing director, whole-time director or executive director, the liability under reverse charge would be determined, based on facts of each case. If there is an employment contract with such a director and the amount paid is as ‘salary’, there will not be any service tax liability since employment contracts or an employee providing services to an employer are specifically excluded from the definition of ‘service’ in section 65B(44) of the Act. Manner of tax deduction at source under the Income Tax Act i.e. whether deduction is made u/s 192 or section 194J may also help indicate (although not conclusive) whether the amount paid is in the nature of salary or remuneration. If a director is paid some fixed amount as salary and other or additional amount as remuneration and if this is not part of the employment contract with the director, reverse charge would apply to such amount paid additionally and not forming part of the employment contract. However, independent directors on the Board act in a fiduciary capacity and therefore the consideration for the service rendered by the director to the company would be liable for reverse charge.

9.    In case of works contract service, in terms of Notification No.24/2012-ST depending on the nature of works contract, different valuation rate viz. 40%, 70% or 60% is applicable. How would the recipient body corporate know whether the provider has applied/paid service tax at the correct rate?

In terms of Explanation II to Notification No.30/2012-ST, the service recipient has the option of choosing the valuation method, independent of the valuation method adopted by the provider of service. Consider an instance, when a provider has charged and paid 50% of the service tax on 40% of the value of an invoice, considering the works contract as one of “original works” whereas if the recipient holds a view that the contract/transaction is not covered by the definition of “original works” and therefore, service tax would be attracted on 60% value. In such a case, whether the recipient is “mandatorily required” to independently determine the substance of the contract by virtue of the above explanation or not, is not clear. The explanation refers only to having an option in reflecting “valuation method”. Therefore, it appears that the recipient along with the provider runs a risk of dispute over ‘valuation’ option if a lower rate in place of a higher one is selected.

Conclusion:

The intention of the Government in introducing the above complicated procedure of reverse charge and especially partial reverse charge for various services provided predominantly in semi-organized sector, can be understood and appreciated as the compliance is poor and undue advantage of threshold exemption also may have been taken by some. However, certain fall-outs of the clumsy system cannot be ignored when it is introduced at the cost of hardship that would be faced by small entities including trading outfits and even the law firms as enumerated below:

  •    Large law firms would not be able to avail any CENVAT credit of service tax paid on various taxable services used by them, as they are not required to collect and pay service tax for their services. This indeed means a substantial cost addition for them.

  •     In case of partial reverse charge, a number of compliance issues are likely to emerge. For instance, if a manpower supply agency has already discharged service tax obligation, as in the past, of 100% liability, and if no service tax is paid by the recipient to the Government, as he has inadvertently paid 100% service tax to the provider.

  •     Whether CENVAT credit of service tax paid to the vendor would be allowed?

  •     Whether or not service tax demand would be raised against the receiver and consequently whether excess service tax paid as the provider would be refunded to the provider?

There are no definite answers to the above issues without going through the litigating process. However, it may be noted here that in the past, considering the basic cannons of taxation that no transaction can be taxed twice, in Invincible Security Services vs. CCE (2009) 13 STR 185 (Tri.-Del) and in Navyug Alloys (P) Ltd. vs. CCE&C (2008) 17 STT 362 (Ahd-CESTAT), liberal view was taken by the Tribunals and even on receiving service tax without authority of law, it was held that it was not open to the department to confirm the same again in respect of the same service and the appeals were allowed.

Since the above illustrations are only a small part of various issues and difficulties that are likely to be faced on account of partial reverse charge, it is recommended that the same should be done away with at the earliest and instead the Government may consider introduction of transaction threshold. A private limited company paying barely Rs.1,500/-as sitting fees to each director for every meeting also is required to register and pay service tax of an insignificant amount. Transaction threshold can relieve such hardships as well as administration costs of the corporate sector as well as that of the department. A pragmatic approach is required on the part of the Government in this matter.

VAT on Builders and Developers in the State of Maharashtra – Part II

fiogf49gjkf0d
(Continued from August’ 12 issue of BCAJ)

Determination of Taxable Sale Price of Works Contract under Rule 58 of MVAT Rules:

For the sake of better understanding of the procedure, relevant portion of Rule 58 of Maharashtra Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 (MVAT Rules) is reproduced hereunder:

‘58. Determination of sale price and of purchase price in respect of sale by transfer of property in goods (whether as goods or in some other form) involved in the execution of a works contract –

(1) The value of the goods at the time of the transfer of property in the goods (whether as goods or in some other form) involved in the execution of a works contract may be determined by effecting the following deductions from the value of the entire contract, in so far as the amounts relating to the deduction pertain to the said works contract:–

(i) labour and service charges for the execution of the works;

(ii) amounts paid by way of price for sub-contract , if any, to subcontractors;

(iii) charges for planning, designing and architect’s fees;

(iv) charges for obtaining on hire or otherwise, machinery and tools for the execution of the works contract;

(v) cost of consumables such as water, electricity, fuel used in the execution of works contract, the property in which is not transferred in the course of execution of the works contract;

(vi) cost of establishment of the contractor to the extent to which it is relatable to supply of the said labour and services;

(vii) other similar expenses relatable to the said supply of labour and services, where the labour and services are subsequent to the said transfer of property;

(viii) profit earned by the contractor to the extent it is relatable to the supply of said labour and services:

Provided that where the contractor has not maintained accounts which enable a proper evaluation of the different deductions as above or where the Commissioner finds that the accounts maintained by the contractor are not sufficiently clear or intelligible, the contractor or, as the case may be, the Commissioner may, in lieu of the deductions as above, provide a lump sum deduction as provided in the Table below and determine accordingly the sale price of the goods at the time of the said transfer of property-

 Serial No.

 Type of Works contract

 *Amount to be deducted from the contract price (expressed as a percentage of the cont ract price)

 (1)

 (2)

 (3)

 5

  C i v i l w o r k s l i k e construction of buildings, bridges, roads, etc.

 30 %

Note: The percentage is to be applied after first deducting from the total contract price, the quantum of price on which tax is paid by the sub-contractor, if any, and the quantum of tax separately charged by the contractor if the contract provides for separate charging of tax.

‘(1A) In case of a construction contract, where along with the immovable property, the land or, as the case may be, interest in the land, underlying the immovable property is to be conveyed, and the property in the goods (whether as goods or in some other form) involved in the execution of the construction contract is also transferred to the purchaser such transfer is liable to tax under this rule. The value of the said goods at the time of the transfer shall be calculated after making the deductions under sub-rule (1) and the cost of the land from the total agreement value.

The cost of the land shall be determined in accordance with the guidelines appended to the Annual Statement of Rates, prepared under the provisions of the Bombay Stamp Determination of True Market Value of Property) Rules, 1995, as applicable on the 1st January of the year in which the agreement to sell the property is registered:

Provided that, deduction towards cost of land under this sub-rule shall not exceed 70% of the agreement value.
(In the above rule 58, after sub-rule (I), the sub-rule (1A) is inserted and shall be deemed to have been inserted w.e.f. the 20th June 2006 by Notification No VAT-1507/CR-53/Taxation-1)

(2)    The value of goods so arrived at under sub-rule(1) shall, for the purposes of levy of tax, be the sale price or, as the case may be, the purchase price relating to the transfer of property in goods (whether as goods or in some other form) involved in the execution of a works contract.’

After arriving at the taxable value of works contract, as per the above Rule, the dealer shall calculate tax pay-able on various items of goods involved, the property in which gets transferred from the contractor to the principal, in the execution of works contract.

What should be the amount payable in respect of each of such contract (agreement), that may be a big question and there is no straight way method to determine the liability. It may depend from builder to builder, location to location and project to project. There may be many different combinations, in various types of projects, since its conceptualisation through execution and till completion. All such factors will have their impact in arriving at the taxable value and tax thereon.

If we look at the provisions of the Law, in Maharashtra, tax is payable by a dealer on sale price of goods at such rate of tax as prescribed in the Schedule. And the dealer is entitled to claim input tax credit i.e. setoff of taxes paid on his purchases. Thus net tax payable is Output tax – Input tax credit.

As the sale of flats, offices, etc., (in the circumstances discussed earlier) will be taxed under the concept of deemed sale i.e. ‘works contract’, the taxable value of each contract will have to be determined in accordance with the provisions of Rule 58 of MVAT Rules, as given above. The taxable value so determined will have to be divided in such proportion of taxable goods as the property in which is deemed to have been transferred from the contractor (builder) to the principal (flat purchaser) during the course of execution of ‘works contract’. The proportionate value of each type of goods so determined shall be liable to tax @ 4% or 5% or 12.5% as the case may be.

After working out tax on such sale price, the dealer has to work out the amount of setoff available, of taxes paid on his purchases, in accordance with Rules 52 to 55. The net tax payable shall be the difference of these two amounts (i.e. VAT = Output Tax – Input Tax Credit).

As each agreement is a separate contract, the taxable value of each such agreement needs to be determined separately. The aggregate taxable value of all such agreements, during a given period, shall be the turnover of sale for the purposes of calculating the tax.

It may be noted that, while, it is possible (except in certain circumstances) to determine the total taxable value of sale of goods in each such agreement of this nature, it would not be possible to determine the cost of various kinds of material used in the construction of that particular flat which is just one part of the whole project. Therefore, for applying the rate of tax, one may have to take proportionate value of goods used in the whole project or building as the case may be. Similarly, the aggregate amount of setoff admissible, during a given period, will be available as input tax credit against the total tax payable on aggregate sale price (taxable value) of all such agreements during that period.

(While determining aggregate amount of setoff, care has to be taken to keep separate the proportionate cost of goods used in the construction of unsold flats i.e. those flats and units which are sold after the construction of the building has been completed.)

Thus, for all practical purposes, proportionate method may have to be adopted. And the same method may be used, if required, to determine the net tax payable in respect of each such agreement for sale of flats and units in an under construction building or project. The builder/developer may first work out his total tax liability (net tax payable) on the entire building or project (as the case may be) and then the net tax liability may be divided proportionately either on the basis of area or on the basis of value or on such other method (as may be appropriate) to find out net tax payable in respect of each such agreement.

To take an example (just to explain the point), suppose a builder has constructed a building having a total built up area of 10,000 sq. ft., consisting of 20 units only (all having exactly similar area in terms of sq. ft. as well as amenities and all have been sold simultaneously). Each purchaser has agreed to pay a total sum of Rs. 25 lakh in respect of one unit and the amount is payable in 25 monthly installments of Rs. 1 lakh each. Thus, the total sale price of the above project (spread over 25 months) works out to Rs. 5,00,00,000/- .

The cost of project to the builder may be consisting of various items, but, if we take a simple format, the cost may comprise of the followings:-


The taxable value of goods (in the above project), as per Rule 58 of MVAT Rules will have to be worked out as follows:-
Sale Price – Cost of Land – Expenses on design, hire, consumables, labour and other services (i.e. 500 – 300 – 45 – 25 = 130, all figures in lakh)

(A careful look at the Rule reveals that the sale price so work out is exactly the total of purchase cost of material used and the profit margin, including non-deductible expenses of the dealer.)

Thus, the dealer (builder) will be liable to pay tax on Rs.1,30,00,000/- at the rate as set in the Schedule. As the building, flat or a unit in a building is not an item in the Schedule, tax needs to be worked out on each item of goods, the property in which gets transferred from the contractor to the principal in the course of execution of works contract. Thus, this amount needs to be proportionately divided over all such goods like steel, cement, bricks, stones, wood, electrical wire, plumbing material, fittings and such other construction and finishing goods.

As the cost of material is already known, there should be no difficulty in arriving at the proportionate value. Although, the combinations may differ from project to project, just to make it easier to understand, suppose the total cost of material used in the construction and finishing (i.e Rs. 1,05,00,00/-) is comprising of two types of goods, one liable to tax @ 4% and another @ 12.5%. And suppose, the ratio thereof is 30:70, then the sale price of 130 shall be divided in the proportion 30:70.

Thus, the output tax, for entire project, in this example shall be:


(Note: As tax is not collected separately on sale of such flats, etc. the tax needs to be calculated with reference to Rule 57, by applying the formula: Tax = Sale Price * Rate of Tax/100+Rate)

Now, let’s work out the amount of setoff of taxes paid on purchases:


Thus, total amount of setoff admissible is Rs. 9,37,821/-, and, net Tax payable on the entire project works out to (VAT = Output Tax – Input Tax credit) Rs. 2,23,290 (11,61,111 – 9,37,821)

For each flat, it may work out to (net tax payable/ number of units sold) Rs. 11,165 (223290/20)

[Note: As the built up area of each unit and the price thereof, in the above example have been taken as same, the calculation looks to be very simple, but in a project where there are units of different sizes, sale agreements are entered into at different dates and at different rates, complication of calculation may arise. However, the method of working of net tax payable on the total project will remain almost on the same line. Only thing that the amount of setoff admissible may be little different in a project where some of the units are sold after completion of the project.]

The net tax payable, in terms of percentage to agreement value, works out to app. 0.45%
In some of the cases, it is possible that the builder does not purchase any material himself, but he gives the entire contract of construction and finishing to a contractor for a lump sum price per sq ft and/or per unit, etc. In that case, the contractor will use his own goods and labour, on the land provided to him by the builder, and do the entire work of construction and finishing as per designs and specifications provided to him. The builder either may give entire contract to one contractor or to various contractors for various types of works to be carried out. In all such cases the taxable sale price of flat/units in the hands of the builder, for the purposes of levying VAT shall be worked out as follows:-

Continuing with the above example, suppose the total value of all such contracts (on which such contractor/ sub-contractor has paid tax) is Rs 1,50,00,000/- (@ Rs 1,500/- per sq. ft.), then the amount so paid to sub-contractor/s will also have to be deducted from the total sale price (agreement value). Thus, the calculation may look like as follows:-

Sale Price – Cost of Land – amount paid to sub-contractor – Expenses on designing, hiring, consumables and such other services (i.e. 500-300-150-25 = 25, all figures in lakh), i.e. the amount equivalent to non-deductible expenditure and profit margin of the builder.

As the builder has not used any material of his own, he is not entitled for any setoff, and, in the absence of any direct relation of this taxable sale price with any particular kind of material, the rate of tax applicable may be the highest i.e. 12.5%. Thus, the builder will be liable to pay a total sum of Rs. 2,77,778/- as tax on the entire project (Rs. 25,00,000 * 12.5 / 112.5).

Tax payable in respect of each flat works out to Rs. 13,889 (277778/20).

In terms of percentage it is 0.56%, almost the same as above (little higher).

It may be noted that the deduction under Rule 58(1), in respect of labour & service charges, etc., is available subject to maintenance of proper accounts which en-able a correct evaluation of the different deductions (as above). Thus, there may be an argument that the sales tax authorities may not agree to accept as it is the amount of cost of expenditure incurred on design, labour & such other services, therefore, the builder may have to opt for lump sum deduction at a fixed percentage, as provided in the Table appended to Rule 58(1). In that case, the tax payable may have to be worked out in the following manner (using the figures from same example as above):

Determination of Sale price by adopting deduction as per Table (Rule 58)

A. In case the builder using his own material:-


B. In case of construction and finishing, etc., done by sub-contractor/s:-

For each flat, it may work out to Rs. 19444 (app. 0.78%)

(* Note: Regarding base amount for deduction towards labour and services @ 30%, there may be two views. One view is that this percentage is to be applied after deducting from the total contract price, the quantum of price on which tax is paid by the sub-contractor, the value of land need not to be deducted for calculating this percentage. And another view, which the Department has referred to in one of the FAQ, is that the land price also needs to be deducted before calculating this percentage. For the purposes of this example, view expressed by the Department, has been taken, though the legal position may be different.)

It can be seen from above that the tax burden, through any of these methods, on such agreements works out to between 0.45% & 0.78%, i.e. well below 1% of the agreement value.

It may be noted that in different projects this percentage may differ. If the quantum of amount paid to sub-contractor is higher, the amount of tax payable by the builder will be lower. However, there should not be any material difference in most of the projects of above nature throughout the State.

It may further be noted that in the above example, the land price is taken at about 60% of the sale price (agreement value), but there may be cases where land price is much higher. In all such cases, deduction for the total cost of the land is available, subject to a ceiling of 70% of total sale price (agreement value). Thus, it is possible that due to this artificial ceiling, in some of the projects, the amount of tax payable in terms of percentage may differ substantially. To understand the point, let’s take an example of a luxury look apartment at a prime location.

Suppose the sale price of a luxury look apartment, in an under construction building, located in a prime area of city, is Rs. 25,000 per sq. ft. of built up area, and the amount paid to sub-contractor/s for construction and finishing is Rs. 3,500 per sq ft. Then, the working of tax payable may be as follows:-


Tax in terms of percentage of the agreement value, in such a situation, works out to 1.24%. Although, this percentage would be little lower, where amount paid to sub-contractor is higher than the value considered for this example, the fact remains that this higher percentage is due to artificial ceiling of 70% imposed in Rule 58(1A) . If the actual cost of land is deducted then the tax payable, in same case, will work out at Rs. 117 (i.e. 0.47%).

(* Refer note above)

Point of Taxation and payment of Tax

A dealer (builder/developer) may be able to work out his total tax liability on the entire project through above referred examples, but the main difficulty arises in determining periodic tax liability for depositing tax into the Government treasury.

To understand the provisions regarding payment of tax, filing of returns, etc., one may refer to relevant provisions contained in section 20 of MVAT Act, Rule 17 of MVAT Rules and other such provisions, which provide that a dealer is liable to pay tax on taxable turnover of his sales within 21/30 days from the end of period (i.e. month, quarter or six months) as may be applicable in respect to such dealer. The periodicity, as per Rule 17 is decided on the basis of net tax liability of the immediate previous year. Accordingly, if the net tax payable during the previous financial year is up to Rs. 1,00,000/-, the dealer has to file his return for a period of six months and pay the taxes for that period within 21/30 days from the end of that period of six months (April to September). If the tax liability of the previous financial year is more than Rs. 1 lakh but up to Rs. 10 lakh then the periodicity is quarterly and if the tax liability is more than Rs. 10 lakh, the periodicity is monthly. In fact, now as per the new procedure, a registered dealer has to file his returns and pay taxes as per the periodicity determined and displayed by the sales tax department on its website ‘mahavat.gov.in’. In respect of new dealers, in the first year of registration, and for unregistered periods periodicity is quarterly. (Refer Rule 18)

Next question which arises is, what should be considered as taxable turnover of that particular period (i.e. month, quarter or six months)? Whether point of taxation arises in such cases on the date of agreement so entire value is taxable on that date itself, or on the basis of actual work carried out, or on the basis of payment due or actual payment received, or at the time of giving possession?

As this is for the first time that such kind of agreements, for sale of flats and units in a building, will be liable to tax under the concept of ‘works contract’ the Department may have to provide appropriate guidelines so as to avoid any kind of disputes.

However, if we look into the concept of ‘works contract’, the point of taxation arises as and when the work is carried out. And the quantum thereof is certified by a competent person. In case the builder/developer has given construction contract to a sub-contractor, such a certification may be available because the builder/ developer may be releasing payment accordingly, but in cases where builder/developer employing his own material and labour such periodic certificate/s may or may not be available. In such circumstances, in case of normal contracts, the assessing authorities generally ask for payment of tax on the basis of bills raised by the main contractor on the principal. But, in case of builders/developers such system of raising bills or debit notes on the purchasers of flats/units may or may not be there (depending upon normal practice each builder may be following so far). The question then arises whether the Department can ask the builder/s to pay tax on the basis of amount due as per various dates mentioned in each agreement. If that is so, it may be a huge exercise. Another simple method, in case of non-issue of bills or debit notes, may be as and when actual payment is received, if the same is acceptable to the Department.

Once, the above issue gets settled the next question arises is the periodic determination of taxable sale price i.e. sale price arrived at under Rule 58, which requires various amounts to be reduced from the total agreement value (as referred above). This is one aspect, which may create unending litigation between the dealer/s and the Department.

It may be noted that these agreements for sale of flats and units in an under construction or to be constructed building are not normal construction contracts, these are special agreements (as noted by the Hon’ble High Court also). These contracts require reduction on account of value of land from the total agreement value. Now, this reduction is to be done at what stage in such periodic determination of taxable sale price? Whether the value of undivided share in land is to be reduced from the first few installments (and other reductions in the subsequent installments) or to be spread over through all the installments proportionately? Further, at what point of time the amount paid to sub-contractor/s is to be reduced from the agreement value, particularly if it does not have a direct (periodic) relationship with periodic installments received or to be received from the purchaser/s?

One more aspect, which needs specific attention is the reference to fair market value of land in section 58(1A), which provides that “the cost of the land shall be determined in accordance with the guidelines appended to the Annual Statement of Rates prepared under the provisions of the Bombay Stamp Determination of True Market Value of Property) Rules, 1995, as applicable on the 1st January of the year in which the agreement to sell the property is registered:”. Thus, it is possible that value of undivided share in land, in respect of certain flats or units may differ from the value of land for other flats or units within the same building, if the agreements to sell have been registered in two different calendar years. As each agreement is to be treated as a separate contract, the taxable sale price in respect of each such agreement has to be determined on periodic basis.

Various steps involved in determination of net tax payable, by a builder/developer on periodic basis may be summarised as under:-

1.    Determine the taxable value (sale price of goods) of each agreement for each period of liability.

2.    Sum total of taxable value of all agreements, during a given period, is taxable turnover of sale of goods for the purposes of levying tax.

3.    Determine proportionate taxable value of turnover liable to tax, during that period, at different rates of tax (in proportion to the cost of goods involved).

4.    Calculate total tax payable, during the period, on the taxable turnover of sale of goods by applying the applicable rates (4%, 5%, 12.5%, etc.)

5.    Calculate the amount of setoff admissible on purchase of goods, during the period, property in which gets transferred from the contractor (builder) to the principal (purchaser).

6.    The difference between amounts arrived at in steps 4 and 5 is the net tax payable for that period.

Each and every step, noted above, may need clarification. A further question may arise, in case of certain builders, who are constructing building with their own material. As these dealers (builders) will be entitled to take setoff of taxes paid on their purchases in the period in which the material has been purchased, there may be situations where their claim of setoff is much more than the amount of output tax in that particular period. In all such cases, whether they will be entitled to carry forward the input tax credit (setoff) beyond the financial year?

All these questions need to be addressed appropriately by the Department of Sales Tax and Government of Maharashtra. Another question which arises is in case of certain purchasers, who fall under the specified category of employers, u/s 31 of MVAT Act, i.e whether the provisions of TDS are applicable to such agreements?

As the subject matter is new, there may be many such queries, which need to be resolved.

In the light of the above, it may be necessary for the Government of Maharashtra to consider, in the inter-est of all stake holders, to design a scheme whereby the builders/developers can discharge their tax liability in an appropriate manner, the flat purchasers can discharge their obligation, if any, without hesitation and the Department can assess the tax liability in a hassle-free manner.

While in the Press – Latest Developments:

1.    The artificial ceiling of 70%, in respect of deduction for value of land, in section 58(1A) has been removed vide Notification dated 31st July 2012.

2.    The Commissioner of Sales Tax, Maharashtra, has issued a circular dated 6th August 2012, prescribing conditions and the procedure for granting administrative relief in respect of obtaining registration for past periods and payment of taxes, etc. The prescribed due date for late registration is now extended, by an order of the Supreme Court, to 15th October 2012, and, due date for payment of tax for past periods extended up to 31st October, 2012.

3.    The Department of Sales Tax, through new FAQ hosted on its website, has clarified that:

(i)    Tax is payable by the dealers (builder/ developers) shall be as per the prescribed periodicity (i.e. monthly, quarterly or six monthly as may be applicable).

(ii)    For new dealers and for unregistered periods, periodicity shall be quarterly.
(iii)    The amount received or receivable (due for payment), as per terms of agreement, shall be considered as the gross value of contract for respective period.
(iv)    Deduction for value of TDR will also be available under Rule 58(1A).
(v)    The value of land (including TDR) can be deducted from the initial installments or spread over proportionally on all installments.
(vi)    Input tax credit (set-off of taxes paid on purchases) is available in the period in which such purchases have been effected.
(vii)    However, the builders/developers can carry forward the input tax credit as well as deduction towards land value (including TDR) to the periods of next financial year (for the periods from 20th June 2006 to 31st March 2010). The ceiling of one lac, as prescribed for other dealers, not applicable to builders/ developers.
(viii)    Returns for past periods can be uploaded now.
(ix)    Sale of completed flats are not liable to tax.
(x)    The builder is not liable to pay VAT on flats given to land owner. If land owner sells those flats afterwards, he is not liable to VAT.

(xi)    It is possible that within the same buildings some agreements were registered before 31st March 2010 and others after 1st April 2010. In such cases the dealer can opt for composition scheme of 1% in respect of flats sold after 1st April 2010, and, in respect of earlier transactions he may discharge tax liability in accordance with Rule 58. However, input tax credit in respect of goods used in the construction of flats (for which composition scheme opted) will have to be reversed.

4.    The Supreme Court, in its order dated 28th August 2012, in SLP Nos. 17709, 17738, and 21052 of 2012, has clarified that the payment of tax by the builders/developers shall be subject to the final decision of the Court in the matter involved in Special Leave Petitions.

5.    The Supreme Court has further stated in its order “In case the amendment in section 2(24) of the 2002 Act is held to be unconstitutional and the tax so paid/deposited by the developers is ordered to be returned by the State Government to the developers, the same shall be returned with interest at such rate that may be ordered by the court finally at the time of disposal of matter.”

6.    The representations, made by BCAS, may have some fruitful results. The Government of Maharashtra may consider a proposal for simplified composition scheme for the period 20th June 2006 to 31st March 2010.

Definition of Service, Charge of Service Tax and Negative List

fiogf49gjkf0d
Introduction:
Service tax law has
undergone paradigm shift from the selective approach to the negative
list based approach of taxation of services with effect from 01.07.2012.
Till then, service tax was payable on 117 categories of taxable
services. Now the levy of service tax encompasses all services as
defined in the law, barring 17 services listed in the Negative List. For
the first time after introduction of service tax in 1994, the
definition of the term “service” is provided in the law. Definitions of
various terms including that of taxable services in the earlier
dispensation have been given a go-bye. Certain services have been
defined as “Declared Services”. Further, changes are made in Point of
Taxation Rules, 2011, Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006
and Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Export of Services Rules, 2005 and
Taxation of Services (Provided from Outside India and Received in India)
Rules, 2006 are being replaced by the Place of Provision of Service
Rules, 2012. The ambit of reverse charge mechanism under which the
recipient of service is liable to pay tax is considerably widened. This
is described as a step towards GST. Through the increase in tax rates
from 10% to 12% and widening of tax net, the Government has targeted
revenue collection of Rs.1,24,000 crore. as against the last years
budgeted revenue of Rs. 67,000 crore and revised budgeted revenue of Rs.
92,000 crore.

An attempt is made in this article to analyse the
definition of service, charge of service tax and Negative List of
services. Clause by clause analysis of definition of service:

Section
65B (44) – “service” means any activity carried out by a person for
another for consideration, and includes a declared service, ……………… .

Important ingredients of “service”:

a) any activity
– The focus of the levy is now shifted to an activity which has a wide
coverage. The word, “activity” is not defined in the Act. Any execution
of an act or operation carried out or provision of a facility will also
be included. A single activity is also covered in its ambit and it is
not necessary that such activity should be carried on a regular basis.
Even a passive activity or forbearance to act or to refrain from an act
or to tolerate an act or a situation, would be regarded as service.

b) Carried out by a person for another
– For a transaction of service, there must be two parties, one, service
provider and the other, service receiver. By implication, self service
is outside the ambit of taxable service. However, certain exceptions are
provided which are explained later.

c) For a Consideration
– The term consideration is not defined in the Act. However, as per the
Education Guide issued by the Tax Research Unit, the meaning assigned
to it in the Indian Contract Act, 1872 is to be adopted. Under the
Indian Contract Act, 1872, the definition of “consideration” is, “When,
at the desire of the promisor, the promisee or any other person has done
or abstained from doing, or does or abstains from doing, or promises to
do or to abstain from doing, something, such act or abstinence or
promise is called a consideration for the promise”. In simple terms, the
word, “consideration” would mean everything received in return for a
provision of service including consideration of monetary or non-monetary
nature (in kind). Even deferred consideration would be included. It is
to be noted that it is not necessary that the consideration should flow
from the recipient of service only. The amount received will be
considered as consideration, as long as there is a link between the
provision of service and consideration. However, free gifts, donations,
charities would be outside its scope. Any activity carried on free of
charge or without any consideration is not covered here.

The
definition of “service” thus appears to be all encompassing, subject to
certain exclusions and inclusions explained herein below, the inclusion
of words, “and includes a declared service” appears to be for abundant
caution and the narrative of its importance.

Definition of service (contd.) – but does not include,

(a) an activity which constitutes merely

(i) a transfer of title in goods or immovable property, by way of sale, gift or in any other manner; or

(ii)
such transfer, delivery or supply of any goods which is deemed to be
sale within the meaning of clause (29A) of article 366 of the
Constitution; or

(iii) a transaction in money or actionable claim;

(b) a provision of service by an employee to the employer in the course of or in relation to his employment;

(c) fees taken in any Court or tribunal established under any law for the time being in force.

Let us now examine what could be regarded as covered in each limb of the exclusion clause.

“Mere transfer of title in goods”:

Transfer
of title in goods signifies purchase or sale of goods by which property
in goods is transferred from one person to another. The term, “goods”
is defined in clause 25 of section 65B, “as every kind of movable
property other than actionable claim and money; and includes securities,
growing crops, grass and things attached to or forming part of that
land which are agreed to be severed before sale or under the contract of
sale. The word, “mere transfer of title” has been clarified in the
Education Guide to mean change in ownership. Mere transfer of custody or
possession over goods or immovable property where ownership is not
transferred does not amount to transfer of title. For example, giving
the property on rent or goods for use on hire would not involve a
transfer of title”. This means that, sale or purchase of goods would not
be covered in the definition of service. Transaction in shares and
securities, forward contracts in commodities or currencies, future
contracts in financial derivatives are also included in the definition
of “goods” and would be out of the ambit of the definition of “service”.

“Mere transfer of title in immovable property” :

As clarified in the Education Guide, the term, “immovable property” is to be defined as per the General Clauses Act, 1897. It has been defined to include land, benefits to arise out of land and things attached to earth or permanently fastened to anything attached to earth. Immovable property thus consists of bundle of rights like right to use, right to develop, right to transfer etc. Taking clue from earlier paragraph, it is clear that where ownership is changed in a transaction of immovable property, the same would not be regarded as service. The term, “transfer of property” is defined u/s 5 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 as an act by which a living person conveys movable or immovable property, in present or in future, to one or more living persons. It has been further provided that, the seller is entitled to a charge upon the property in the hands of the buyer for payment of purchase money, or any part thereof remaining unpaid and for interest on such amount where the ownership of the property has passed to the buyer before payment of the whole of purchase money [section 55(4)] and the buyer is entitled to the benefits of any improvement in, or increase in value of the property, and to the rents and profit thereof where the ownership of the property has passed to him [section 55(6)]. As the transaction of mere transfer of title of immovable property is excluded from the definition of service, it needs to be juxtaposed against the declared service of “construction” defined in clause b of section 66E wherein tax is levied on construction of complex, building etc. for sale to a buyer, wholly or partly, except where the entire consideration is received after issuance of completion certificate by the competent authority. The conflict between the exclusion clause from the definition and this entry in “declared service” is apparent.

The activity of transfer, delivery or supply of any goods which is deemed to be sale within the meaning of clause (29A) of article 366 of the Constitution:

By 46th Amendment, Clause 29A was introduced under Article 366 of the Constitution, deeming certain transactions as sale. Such transactions are —

(a)    a tax on the transfer, otherwise than in pursuance of a contract, of property in any goods for cash, de-ferred payment or other valuable consideration;

(b)    a tax on the transfer of property in goods (whether as goods or in some other form) involved in the execution of a works contract;

(c)    a tax on the delivery of goods on hire-purchase or any system of payment by installments;

(d)    a tax on the transfer of the right to use any goods for any purpose (whether or not for a specified period) for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration;

(e)    a tax on the supply of goods by any unincorporated association or body of persons to a member thereof for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration;

(f)    a tax on the supply, by way of or as part of any service or in any other manner whatsoever, of goods, being food or any other article for human consumption or any drink (whether or not intoxi-cating), where such supply or service, is for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration, and such transfer, delivery or supply of any goods shall be deemed to be a sale of those goods by the person making the transfer, delivery or supply and a purchase of those goods by the person to whom such transfer, delivery or supply is made.

The definition of service excludes transactions of sale and purchase, delivery or supply of any of above kind of “deemed sale”. The transactions listed above needs to be juxtaposed against some of the “Declared Services” in order to understand the conflict between the exclusion clause and such “Declared Services”. It has been clarified in the Education Guide that activities specified as declared list which are related to transactions that are deemed as sales under Article 366(29A) have been carefully specified to ensure that there is no conflict. The Education Guide dwells on the Supreme Court decision in case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. UOI [2006(2) STR 161] which would be a self explanatory guide to determine taxability of such transactions.

The following principles emerge from the said judgment for ascertaining the taxability of composite transactions :

  •  The nature of a composite transaction, except in case of two exceptions carved out by the Constitution, would be determined by the element which determines the ‘dominant nature’ of the transaction.

  •     If the dominant nature of such a transaction is sale of goods or immovable property, then such transaction would be treated as such.

  •     If the dominant nature of such a transaction is provision of a service, then such transaction would be treated as a service and taxed as such, even if the transaction involves an element of sale of goods.

  •  If the transaction represents two distinct and separate contracts and is discernible as such then contract of service in such transaction would be segregated and chargeable to service tax if other elements of taxability are present. This would apply even if a single invoice is issued.

The principles explained above would, mutatis mutan-dis, apply to composite transactions involving an element of transfer of title in immovable property or transaction in money or an actionable claim”.

An activity which constitutes merely a transaction in money or actionable claim:

Transaction in money:

In relation to “transaction in money”, deposits or withdrawals from bank accounts, advancing or repayment of principal sum as loans, investments etc. would be covered under the exclusion clause. However, any return by way of interest, commission etc. in such monetary transactions would not qualify for the exclusion. The exclusion clause also would not apply to money changing or conversion from one form of currency to another form (forex transactions) for a consideration. It may however, be noted that interest is not liable for payment of service tax.

Actionable claim:

The term, “actionable claim” is defined under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. As per the definition, “actionable claim” means a claim to any debt or to any beneficiary interest in movable property not in the possession (either actual or constructive) of the claimant. Thus, the term actionable claim has a very wide connotation. The transaction of securitisation or transfer of debt, beneficial interest in an estate or trust or any right in expectancy in a movable property, insurance claim etc. would not be covered under the definition of service. However, any commission service fees or other charges collected in respect thereof, would get covered.

A provision of service by an employee to the employer in the course of or in relation to his employment:

Services provided by an employee to the employer in the course of, or in relation to employment contract, are outside the ambit of the definition of service. In other words, the services provided by persons on the pay roll of the company, to that company would not be covered under service tax. Reimbursement of expenditure on actual basis during the course of employment should not be regarded as taxable service. Services provided by a person on contractual basis on principal to principal basis (other than employment contract), would be covered under the definition of service.

The question may arise in relation to service by employer to the employee. If such services, e.g. provision of residential accommodation at concessional rate, provision of company’s motor car for personal use with a charge, food coupons, leave travel etc. emanating from employment contract should not be covered under the definition and may not be taxable. The provision of services of employees of one company to the other group company for a consideration which is known as ‘secondment’ may not be covered in this exclusion clause and hence are taxable. Benefits to ex-employees are covered under this clause and excluded from payment of service tax if the same are in pursuance of employment contract. The fees, remuneration, commission etc. paid to employee/ whole time/executive directors would also fall under the exclusion clause.

Fees taken in any Court or tribunal established under any law for the time being in force:

This is a self explanatory clause by which Court or Tribunal fees are excluded from the purview of service tax and does not require any deliberation.

Other Exclusions:

Certain other kind of activities are also excluded from the definition of “service”. The same is provided for removal of doubt by way of an Explanation to the definition of “service” in section 65B(44) :

  •     the functions performed by the Members of Parliament, Members of State Legislative, Members of Panchayats, Members of Municipalities and Members of other local authorities who receive any consideration in performing the functions of that office as such member; or
  •     the duties performed by any person who holds any post in pursuance of the provisions of the

Constitution in that capacity; or

  •     the duties performed by any person as a Chairper-son or a Member or a Director in a body established by the Central Government or State Governments or local authority and who is not deemed as an employee before the commencement of this section.

This clause provides certain exclusions as an abundant caution, as the above persons may not be covered under the exclusion clause relating to employer – employee kind of relationship. The definition of Central and State Government is as per General Clauses Act, 1897. The local authority is defined in clause 31 of section 65B of the Finance Act, 1994.

Deeming Fiction

Explanation 3 to the definition of “service” provides that the transaction between a member and an unincorporated association or body of persons would be treated as transaction between distinct persons and therefore would be liable to tax if not otherwise excluded. The definition of person in clause 37 of section 65B includes an individual, HUF, company, society, LLP, firm, AOP or BOI whether incorporated or not, Government, local authority or artificial judicial person. Through the insertion of the said Explanation, the concept of mutuality is sought to be diluted.

In relation to an establishment of a person in taxable territory and any of his other establishment in non-taxable territory, both the establishments shall be treated as different persons for the purpose of levy of service tax. Thus, transactions between the head office or a branch or agency or representative office located in different taxable territories are regarded as different entities for the purpose of levy of service tax. This is an exception to the general rule that services provided by a person to another are only taxable.

In view of wide coverage of the definition of “service”, the following activities are some examples of what hitherto was not covered, but now may be covered under the new dispensation:

  •     Activities by commercial artists/performers, actors, directors, reality show judges

  •     Arbitrators to business organisations

  •     Banking Service to Government

  •     Lectures, Private tutors

  •     Corporate guarantees

  •     Research grants with counter obligations

  •    Service of renting of immovable property provided by Government & local authority to non-commercial organisations unless otherwise specifically excluded

  •     Service of renting of immovable property provided to Government and local authority by a person located in Taxable Territory.

This is just an illustrative list, there could be many more such examples.

Charge of Service tax

Section 66B provides for charge of service tax – “There shall be levied a tax (hereinafter referred to as the service tax) at the rate of twelve percent on the value of all services, other than those services specified in the negative list, provided or agreed to be provided in the taxable territory by one person to another and collected in such manner as may be prescribed.”

Important requirements for charge of Service tax:

  •     Charge on all services [defined u/s 6B(44)], other than Negative list,

  •    Service provided or agreed to be provided,

  •     Service should be in the taxable territory (as determined under The Place of Provision of Service Rules, 2012)

  •     Service by one person to another (subject to exceptions mentioned above)

Having discussed the definition of service, the most important term to be discussed here is “service provided or agreed to be provided”. The term pre-supposes an agreement for provision of service. Such agreements could be oral, written or even implied by the conduct of the parties to the transaction. Without any indication in the Act or from the Government, by implication, it could be presumed that the provisions of the Indian Contract Act, 1882 would be applicable. The European Court of Justice in R. J. Tolsma’s case held that only if there is a legal relationship between the provider of service and the recipient, pursuant of which there is reciprocal performance, the remuneration received by the provider of service constituting the value actually given in return for the service supplied to the recipient. In case of Naturally Yours Cosmetics reported in (1988) ECR 6365, it is held that the basis of assessment for a provision of service is everything which makes up the consideration for the service and that a provision of service is therefore taxable only if there is a direct link between the service provided and the consideration received. In other words, in absence of a contractual obligation and direct relationship between a provision of service and the consideration, no service tax can be levied and unilateral acts would not be covered. The examples of such activities are charities, inheritance, compensation for accidents, alimonies in divorce cases, personal transactions etc.

Negative List:

The Negative list provided in section 66D, comprises of following services:

a)    Services by government or a local authority excluding certain services to the extent not covered elsewhere. These are as follows :
(i)    Services by the department of post, by way of speed post, express parcel post, life insurance and agency services carried out on payment of commission on non-government business,

(ii)    Services in relation to a vessel or an aircraft inside or outside the precincts of a port or an airport,

(iii)    Transportation of goods and/or passengers,

(iv)    Support services other than those covered above to the business entities. Important support services provided by the Government to the business entities are as under:

  •  Infrastructural, operational, administrative, logistic, marketing or any other support of any kind comprising functions;

  •  Such functions are carried out in ordinary course of operations by the entities themselves;

  •    Such services, however, may be outsourced from others for any reason whatsoever;

  •  and includes advertisement and promotion, construction or works contract, renting of immovable property, security, testing and analysis.
b)    Services by Reserve Bank of India;
c)    Services by foreign diplomatic mission located in India;
d)    Certain services in relation to agriculture or agriculture produce by way of,

  •     agricultural operations directly related to production of any agricultural produce including cultivation, harvesting, threshing, plant protection or seed testing;

  •     supply of farm labour;

  •     processes carried out at an agricultural farm including tending, pruning, cutting, harvesting, drying, cleaning, trimming, sun drying, fumigating, curing, sorting, grading, cooling or bulk packaging and such like operations which do not alter the essential characteristics of agricultural produce but make it only marketable for the primary market;

  •     renting or leasing of agro machinery or vacant land with or without a structure incidental to its use;

  •     loading, unloading, packing, storage or warehousing of agricultural produce;

  •     agricultural extension services;

  •    services by any Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee or Board or services provided by a commission agent for sale or purchase of agricultural produce;

The terms, “agriculture”, “agricultural produce”, “agricultural extension service” and “Agriculture Produce Marketing Committee or Board” are defined in the Act:

e.    Trading of goods;

A transfer of title in goods is excluded from the definition of “service”. Trading in goods involves a transfer of title in goods. Despite that, trading of goods is also included in the Negative list. This inclusion in Negative list effectively means that Cenvat credit in relation to trading of goods will be denied/restricted.

f.    Any process amounting to manufacture or production of goods;

Generally speaking, process amounting to manufacture or production of goods cannot be said to be a “service”, however, the same is not specifically excluded from the definition of service as we have seen above. Process amounting to manufacture or production of goods is defined as “a process on which duties of excise are leviable u/s 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 or any process amounting to manufacture of alcoholic liquors for human consumption, opium, Indian hemp and other narcotic drugs and narcotics on which duties of excise are leviable under any State Act for the time being in force”. Further, the Education Guide clarifies that this entry covers manufacturing activity carried out on contract or job work basis, which does not involve transfer of title in goods, provided duties of excise are leviable on such processes under the Central Excise Act, 1944 or any of the State Acts.

The inclusion of such activity in Negative list effec-tively means that Cenvat credit in relation to such process amounting to manufacture or production of goods may be denied to a job worker though the principal manufacturer has paid excise duty.

g)    Selling of space or time slots for advertisements other than advertisement broadcast by radio or television;

Selling of space or time slots in cinema theatres, hoard-ings in public places etc. are covered in the State List and therefore they are placed in the Negative list.

h)    Services by way of access to a road or a bridge on payment of toll charges;

Allowing access to road or a bridge on payment of toll is in Negative list. However, services rendered by any toll collecting agency are leviable to tax.

i)    Betting, gambling or lottery;

Betting or gambling is defined in the Act to mean, “putting on stake something of value, particularly money, with consciousness of risk and hope of gain on the outcome of a game or a contest, whose result may be determined by chance or accident, or on the likelihood of anything occurring or not occurring”. Lottery is covered under “actionable claim” which is excluded from the definition of “service”. Further, the betting or gambling activities are included in the State List. However, any ancillary service for organising or promoting betting or gambling events is not covered under the Negative list.

j)    Admission to entertainment event or access to amusement facilities;

Entertainment event is defined under the Act to mean, “an event or a performance which is intended to pro-vide; recreation, pastime, fun or enjoyment, by way of exhibition of cinematographic film, circus, concerts, sporting event, pageants, award functions, dance, musical or theatrical performances including drama, ballets or any such event or programme”.

Amusement facility is defined under the Act to mean, “a facility where fun or recreation is provided by means of rides, gaming devices or bowling alleys in amusement parks, amusement arcades, water parks, theme parks or such other places, but does not include a place within such facility where other services are provided”.

Tax on admission or entry to such events is covered in the State List which is subjected to Entertainment tax and therefore the same is included in the Negative list. It has been clarified that membership of a club providing such amusement facility would not be covered in the Negative list. Further, any ancillary service in relation to such entertainment event like an event manager for organising such event or an entertainer for providing the entertainment is also not covered under the Negative list.

k)    Transmission or distribution of electricity by an electricity transmission or distribution utility;

Electricity transmission or Distribution utility is defined under the Act to mean, “the Central Electricity Authority; a State Electricity Board; the Central Transmission Utility or a State Transmission Utility notified under the Electricity Act, 2003; or a distribution or transmission licensee under the said Act, or any other entity entrusted with such function by the Central Government or, as the case may be, the State Government”. It has been clarified that a developer or housing society collecting charges for distribution of electricity within a residential complex would not be covered under the Negative list. Further, any service provided by way of installation of gensets etc. by private contractors for distribution of electricity would not be covered under this entry.

l)    Certain educational services;

  •     Any pre-school education and education up to higher secondary school or equivalent;

  •    Education as a part of a curriculum for obtaining a qualification recognised by any law for the time being in force;
  •     Education as a part of an approved vocational education course.

Education services relating to delivery of education as a part of the curriculum that has been prescribed for obtaining a qualification under Indian law is covered in this entry. Conduct of degree courses by colleges, universities or institutions which lead grant of qualifications recognised by the law, is covered. It has been clarified that services of international schools by way of education upto higher secondary school or equivalent giving IB certifications are covered in this entry. Coaching or training given by private coaching institutes or tutors is not covered in this entry.

Approved Vocational Education Course as defined under the Act, is also covered in the Negative list.

m)    Services by way of renting of residential dwelling unit for use as residence;

Renting is defined under the Act as “allowing, permitting or granting access, entry, occupation, use or any such facility, wholly or partly, in an immovable property, with or without the transfer of possession or control of the said immovable property and includes letting, leasing, licensing or other similar arrangements in respect of immovable property”. Renting of a residential accommodation for use as residence is covered under the Negative list. However, a hotel accommodation, motel, inn, guest house, campsite, lodge are not covered in this entry.

n)    (i) Services by way of extending deposits, loans or advances for interest or discount;

This entry covers such services wherein money is allowed to be used or retained on payment of interest or discount. The deposits, loans or advances, corporate deposits, overdraft facility, mortgage or loans with a collateral security, corporate deposits lent for interest or discount would also be covered in this entry. However, any charges like administrative charges, fees, entry charges recovered in addition to interest, would not form part of this entry. It has been clarified that, late payment charges signifies extra charges over and above the normal interest in relation to credit cards and therefore would not be covered under this entry.

(ii) Inter se, sale or purchase of foreign currency amongst banks or authorised dealers;

This entry covers sale and purchase of foreign exchange between banks, or banks and authorised dealers of foreign exchange. Any commission or discount in relation to such forex transactions would not be covered in this entry.

o)    Services of transportation of passengers with or without accompanying belongings by,

  •    a stage carriage;

  •   railways in a class other than first class; or an air-conditioned coach;

  •     metro, monorail or tramway;

  •     inland waterways;

  •     public transport, other than predominantly for tourism purpose, in a vessel between places located in India; and
  •     metered cabs, radio taxis or auto rickshaws;

The term, “stage carriage”, “inland waterways” and “metered cabs” are defined under the Act. However the term, “radio taxis”, is not defined.

In relation to services by public transport other than for tourism purpose, it has been clarified that normal public ships or other vessels that sail between places located in India would be covered in the negative list entry, even if some of the passengers on board are using the service for tourism as predominantly such service is not for tourism purpose. However, services provided by leisure or charter vessels or a cruise ship, predominant purpose of which is tourism, would not be covered in the negative list even if some of the passengers in such vessels are not tourists.

p)    Services by way of transportation of goods by road except the services of a goods transportation agency or a courier agency or by an aircraft or a vessel from a place outside India to the customs station of clearance in India or by inland waterways;
The term, “goods transport agency” is defined under the Act as “any person who provides service in relation to transport of goods by road and issues consignment note, by whatever name called”.

The term, “courier agency” is defined under the act as “any person engaged in the door-to-door transportation of time-sensitive documents, goods or articles utilising the services of a person, either directly or indirectly, to carry or accompany such documents, goods or articles”.

It has been clarified that service provided by ‘angadia’ is covered within the definition of courier and liable to Service tax. Services provided by an agent for transportation of goods by inland waterways would not be covered in the Negative list.

q)  Funeral, burial, crematorium or mortuary.

Conclusion:

The definition of service provides greater clarity and is a good attempt to begin with. However, the inclusion of “any activity” may create a number of complications as any non-economic activities can also be covered. It is therefore necessary to confine the levy only on economic activity. The Negative list based taxation substantially reinvents the law on Service tax and will have a deep impact on service transactions. From specific definition of taxable services in the earlier dispensation, the shift to all inclusive definition of service, the onus of proof that a service provided is taxable or not has shifted from the department to the service provider or the recipient, as the case may be. A provider of service would now be required to discharge the burden of payment of tax, if his activity is not excluded from the definition of service or not covered in the Negative list and not an exempted activity under the Mega exemption notification. The necessity of written contract of provision of service cannot be over-emphasised under the changed provisions of the law.

HIGHLIGHTS OF THE MAHARASHTRA STATE BUDGET 2011-12

fiogf49gjkf0d
26% increase in Sales Tax (VAT) collection in 2010-11 over 2009-10. Original target of Rs.35896 crore now increased to Rs.40415 crore. Estimated revenue for 2011-12 is set at Rs.46000 crore.

31% increase in Stamp Duty collection in 2010- 11 over 2009-10. Original Budget estimates of Rs.10478 crore now increased to Rs.14140 crore. Revenue for 2011-12 is estimated at Rs.15677 crore.

Revenue from State Excise Duty is estimated at Rs.5800 crore for 2010-11 and Rs.8500 crore for 2011-12.

Revised estimates of revenue from Motor Vehicle Tax for 2010-11 are at Rs.3471 crore, almost 21.36% higher than the original Budget estimates of Rs.2,860 crore. The Budget estimates for 2011-12 are pegged at Rs.4,000 crore.

Devolution from Central Government also increased substantially. As per the recommendations of the 13th Finance Commission, Maharashtra’s share in sharable taxes (other than service tax) has been increased from 4.997 % to 5.199%. The share in service tax has been increased from 5.063% to 5.281%. The total transfers for the year 2011-12 including devolution and grants is Rs.16593.9 crore.

Total tax receipts, including devolution, are estimated at Rs.84914 crore in revised estimates for 2010-11, about 13.64% higher than the original Budget estimates of Rs.74721 crore. The Budget estimates for 2011-12 are at Rs.97404 crore.

Rate of tax on ‘declared goods’ proposed to be increased from 4% to 5%.

No change in standard rate of VAT, continue to remain @ 12.5%.

Extension of time limit to exemption of essential commodities such as rice, pulses and their flours, turmeric, chillies, tamarind, gur, coconut, cumin seeds, fenugreek and parsley (Suva), papad, wet dates, Solapuri chaddars and towels, etc., up to 31st March 2012.

Fabrics and sugar continue to remain tax free.

Domestic LPG shall also continue to be tax free.

Concessional rate of tax on tea, i.e., 5%, proposed to be continued till 31st march 2012.

Tax on aviation turbine fuel, sold from places in Maharashtra other than Mumbai and Pune districts, is charged at the concessional rate of 4% up to 31-3-2011. This concession is now extended up to 31-3-2012.

Pre-fabricated domestic biogas units are proposed to be tax free.

No tax shall be levied on transfer of copyrights of films relating to their exhibition in theatres.

Telecasting rights of various entertainment and sports events are proposed to be included in the list of ‘intangible goods’, attracting tax @ 5%.

Rate of tax on dry fruits proposed to be reduced from 12.5% to 5%.

Rate of tax on carbonated soft drinks to be increased from 12.5% to 20%.

Sale of goods to electricity generating, transmission, distribution units, telecom, industry, defence and railways, etc., which was attracting concessional rate of tax @ 4% is now proposed to increased to 5%.

Rate of tax on goggles proposed to be increased to 12.5%.

Turnover limit of Composition Scheme for Bakers to be increased from Rs.30 lakh to Rs.50 lakh.

E-services to the dealers to be strengthened by using TINXSYS network. Business intelligence tools and data warehouse are also proposed to be adopted for quicker analysis of data.

Some amendments, in the MVAT Act and Rules are proposed, including amendments regarding certain procedures in respect of filing of returns, grant of refunds, voluntary registration and penalties, etc.

Stern actions are proposed to be taken against Hawala dealers.

The present procedure for payment of sugarcane purchase tax is proposed to be changed by amending the Sugarcane Purchase Tax Act.

Amnesty Scheme for sick sugar factories.

Proposal to waive interest and penalty to soap industry certified by Khadi & Village Industry Board.

Proposal to change the scheme of levying tax on sale of liquor. First-point tax proposed in the hands of manufacturers/importers. Once tax is paid by the manufacturer or importer, subsequent dealers will not be required to pay any tax. However, the rate of tax on liquor served in hotels having 4-star or higher rating shall be 20%, while in other bars, restaurants and clubs is proposed to be @ 5% (without set-off benefits).

Rate of excise duty on manufacture of country liquor an IMFL is proposed to be increased.

Uniform rate of Stamp Duty to be charged @ 0.005% on transactions taking place at stock and commodity exchanges, including transactions of securities, futures, delivery-based, non-delivery-based whether for clients or on own account.

Transactions of transfer of long-held tenancy rights of house properties to attract Stamp Duty.

levitra

(2011) 38 VST 33 (Delhi) Metalite Industries v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Delhi

fiogf49gjkf0d
Central Sales Tax — Section 2(c) and section 14, Delhi Sales Tax Act — Schedule II, Entry 3 — Declared goods — Whether cable trays manufactured from iron and steel is a different commodity and, therefore, does not fall in the category of declared goods?

Facts:
The assessee, a dealer in iron and steel, sold cable trays without charging tax from the purchasing dealers. The Department took the view that the same could not be sold without charging tax from the purchaser on the ground that the goods were not covered by the term ‘iron and steel’ within the meaning of section 14((iv)(vii) of Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Reassessment was made and additional demand of certain amount as tax along with interest u/s.27(1) of Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975, was raised. Appeals filed before the Additional Commissioner as well as the Tribunal were dismissed. On references:

Held:
That it could not be said that the cable trays — perforated as well as ladder types continued to remain iron and steel plates. Both types of plates were manufactured out of mild steel sheets of 2mm thickness. The types of processes involved brought an ultimate product which was distinct and different. There could not be any doubt that the plates have undergone transformation into cable trays and the process involved was manufacturing. These were sold in the market to meet different mechanical and engineering needs as distinct from the plain or chequered plates. Therefore, the ‘cable trays’ sold by the dealer could not fit in the category of ‘iron and steel plates’ as specified in clause (vii) of sub section (iv) of section 14 of the CST Act.

levitra

(2011) 38 VST 1 (SC) Saraf Trading Corporation v. State of Kerala

fiogf49gjkf0d
Central Sales Tax Act — Section 5(3), Kerala General Sales Tax Act — Section 44 — Refund of tax paid can be claimed by the dealer, who has paid tax to the Government and not by the purchaser, who has purchased the goods in auction without specifying that such purchase is for the purpose of export but later exported the same.

Facts:
The appellant purchased tea, from the tea planters, directly in open auction and thereafter exported the same to foreign countries. They were allowed exemption of tax on export sale. The auction purchase price was inclusive of sales tax. The tea planters, being liable to pay tax to the State Government paid due taxes. Appellant claimed refund of taxes paid on the basis that the sale by tea planters was penultimate sale, u/s.5(3) of CST Act, as they have collected tax from the appellant the same should be refunded to him.

Held:

The phrase ‘sale in the course of export’ used in section 5(3) of Central Sales Tax Act, comprises three essentials viz., (i) there must be a sale of goods, (ii) those goods must be actually exported, and (iii) the sale must be part and parcel of export.

To ‘occasion export’ there must exist such a bond between the contract of sale and actual export. Each link is inextricably connected with the one immediately preceding, without which a transaction cannot be called a sale ‘in the course of export’.

In the facts and circumstances of the case it was not clear that the sale and purchase between the parties was inextricably linked with the export of goods. At the time of purchase of goods, in auction, there was nothing on record to show that the purchase was for the purpose of export. Since no such claim was made at that stage, sales tax was rightly realised by the sellers and paid to the Government.

Under section 44 of Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, it was clear that it was only the dealer of tea on whom assessment had been made could claim refund of tax and no one else. Therefore, refund of tax could not be made to the appellants.

levitra

(2011) 21 STR 445 (Tri.-Bang) – Country Club (India) Ltd. vs. Comm. Of Cus., C. Ex.& S.T., Hyderabad

fiogf49gjkf0d
Cost of land paid to sister concern deducted by the assessee club from the consideration received from members includible in value in terms of CBEC Circular dated 27/07/2005 subject to actual finding of facts.

Facts:

The appellant was providing membership to general public with or without land and was discharging service tax on the membership charges after deducting cost of land under “club or association services”. The appellant transferred amount collected from members as cost of land to its sister concern and the said sister concern allotted plots to the members. The cost of land was deducted since such amount was not towards facilities or advantages given to a member. However, the Department demanded service tax on gross value charged without allowing deduction of cost of land on the ground that the amount received towards cost of land, is for an advantage that could accrue to a member relying on Board’s Circular dated 27/07/2005. Moreover, the Department contended that the appellant could not offer evidences for the amount apportioned towards the cost of land to its sister concern.

Held:
The matter was remanded back to the adjudicating authority to ascertain whether any amount towards cost of land was transferred to sister concern. If the answer was in affirmative, the amount apportioned towards sale of item i.e. sale of land in present case, would be excludible from gross value for service tax levy based on the Board’s Circular dated 27/07/2005 which is binding on the department.

levitra

(2011) 21 STR 234 (Tri – Bang) – United Telecom Ltd. vs. CCEx., Hyderabad

fiogf49gjkf0d
Extended period of limitation found not applicable when Department had knowledge of activity of assessee – The Tribunal further observed that SCN did not mention statutory provision for demanding tax.

Facts:
The lower authorities passed order demanding service tax of Rs.1.06 Cr. under business auxiliary services for the period from 2003 to 2007 and levied penalty of Rs.1.10 CR under sections 76, 77 and 78 of Finance Act, 1994. However, the sub-clause under which service tax was required to be paid was not mentioned. Appellant had intimated as to their activities to Department in December, 2005. Moreover, on the identical issue for earlier years in case of the appellant itself, the lower authorities had accepted the order of the appellate authority.

Held:

Extended period of limitation was not invoked when the appellant had intimated its activities to the Department. The demand could not be confirmed when the show cause notice did not specify the specific statutory provision. Demand of service tax, interest and penalty was set aside.

levitra

(2011) 21 STR 289 (Tri. Chennai) – Textech International (P) Ltd. vs. CCE, Chennai

fiogf49gjkf0d
Rebate claim by exporter not deniable on the ground of non-registration – Remanded for fresh adjudication.

Facts:
Department denied the rebate claim of the appellant, an exporter, on the ground that the same pertained to the period prior to registration under the service tax law.

Held:

Only a person liable to pay service tax needs to take registration under the service tax law. The exporter was not required to take registration mandatorily. Moreover, penalty for non-registration was only Rs.1,000/- as against rebate claim of over Rs.3,50,000/-. Tribunal remanded the rebate claim to the adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication.

levitra

(2011) 21 STR 378 (Tri.-Chennai) – CCEx. vs. Grasim Industries

fiogf49gjkf0d
CENVAT credit on repairs/maintenance services of staff colony, security services, gardening services etc. not eligible for CENVAT credit in absence of nexus with ‘manufacture’ – Ratio of Maruti Suzuki followed.

Facts:

CENVAT credit on repairs and maintenance services received for staff colony, gardening services, security services in the wind farms, swimming pool maintenance and civil work for auditorium, shopping complex etc. were denied since the services received did not have any nexus with the manufacture of final product. The lower authorities allowed it on the basis of judgment in the case of CCE, Nagpur vs. Manikgarh Cement (2009) (16 STR 171). The Department preferred an appeal and claimed that the said judgment was reversed by the Bombay High Court vide CCE, Nagpur vs. Manikgarh Cement (2010) (20 STR 456). The respondent defended that since the factory was located in remote area, these services were essential to run the factory.

Held:
The Bombay High Court in Manikgarh Cement (supra) had applied the ratio of Maruti Suzuki Ltd. vs. CCE 2009 (240 ELT 641) (SC) and held that nexus needs to be established between the services received and the business of the assessee. Moreover, the Tribunal, in case of Sundaram Break Linings 2010 (19 STR 172) had examined the identical issue in light of Maruti Suzuki case (supra). Therefore, in absence of nexus with the business activity, CENVAT credit was denied.

levitra

(2011) 21 STR 546 (Tri.-Chennai) — CCEx., Madurai v. Tata Coffee Ltd.

fiogf49gjkf0d
Service tax paid on transport of empty containers from yard to factory for stuffing export goods is eligible for refund.

Facts:
The question to be considered was whether service tax paid on goods transported from factory to port of export is alone eligible for refund or the same also extends to service tax paid on transport of empty containers from yard to factory for stuffing export goods.

Held:
The Notification granting refund contains ‘in relation to transport of export goods’ phrase, which is wide enough to cover service tax paid on transport of empty containers from yard to factory for stuffing export goods.

levitra

Extension of Due date for filing return for the period ending 30th June, 2012-Trade Circular No.15T of 2012 dated 13.08.2012

fiogf49gjkf0d
For monthly or quarterly return period ending 30th June, 2012, due date for uploading of return was 31.07.2012 which is extended upto 17.08.2012. If the said return filed before 17.08.2012, but after 31.07.2012 have to be filed along with late fee of Rs. 5000/- and the late fees so paid will be entitled for adjustment as credit for the immediately succeeding return period.

levitra

Grant of Registration and Administrative Relief to Developers – Trade Circular No.14T of 2012 dated 06.08.2012

fiogf49gjkf0d
Vide this Circular, the Commissioner has announced a grant of administrative relief to builders and developers. If the builders and developers are not registered under the VAT Act, then they were required to apply for VAT TIN on or before 16.8.2012 to get benefit of this circular. Further, they are also required to pay all taxes and upload all the returns from 20.6.2006 till date and apply for administrative relief on or before 31.8.2012.

levitra

Amendments to certain laws administered by the Sales Tax Department – Trade Circular No.13T of 2012 dated 06.08.2012

fiogf49gjkf0d
In this Circular, the Commissioner has explained the amendments carried out under different Acts administered by the sales tax department through the Finance Act of the State.

levitra

Automatic cancellation of unilateral assessment order – Trade Circular No. 12T of 2012 dated 01.08.2012

fiogf49gjkf0d
In the present procedure, in the event of failure to file return, assessing authority undertakes the assessment in respect of the period under default. The assessment order is passed in Form-303 known as “unilateral assessment order” and the dealer after filing return or making payment of tax due, applies in Form 304 for cancellation of such UAO.

WEF 01.08.2012, there is no need to file Form 304 for cancellation of UAO. MAHAVIKAS system automatically ascertains the return filing status for a particular period and if filed then the system shall cancel the UAO and will inform the dealer by email. The dealer may also access his e-mail at <Your mail> menu at department’s web-site.

levitra

Security Services & Services provided by Directors under partial reverse charge mechanism – Notification No. 45/2012-ST & 46/2012 – ST both dtd. 07.08.20112

fiogf49gjkf0d
Notification no. 45/2012-ST has amended Notification No. 30/2012-ST dtd. 20-06-2012, by adding the following two more services under partial reverse charge mechanism:

(a) Services provided or agreed to be provided by director of a company to the said company: 100% of the service tax payable by the person receiving services;
(b) Security services provided or agreed to be provided by an Individual, HUF, partnership firm or association of persons to a business entity registered as a body corporate : 25% of the service tax payable by person providing service & 75% of service tax payable by person receiving service.

The term “Security Services” has been defined vide Notification No. 46/2012 as services relating to the security of any property, whether movable or immovable, or of any person, in any manner and includes the services of investigation, detection or verification, of any fact or activity.

levitra

Reg. Bovine Animals Notification No. 44/2012 – ST – dtd. 07.08.2012

fiogf49gjkf0d
By this Notification Mega Exemption Notification
No. 25/2012 dtd. 20-06-2012 has been amended by omitting word “bovine”
in entry no. 33 which reads as “Services by way of slaughtering of
bovine animals”.

levitra

V. Win Garments v. Additional Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Tirupur, [2011] 42 VST 330 (Mad).

fiogf49gjkf0d
Central Sales Tax – Sales to the exporter –
Against Form H – Production of agreement with foreign buyer – Not
mandatory – Section 5 (3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.

Facts
The
dealer claimed exemption from payment of tax u/s 5(3) of the CST Act in
respect of sale of goods to the exporter against Form H and produced
the Form H and copy of bill of lading before the assessing authorities.
The assessing authorities denied the exemption claimed by the dealer for
want of production of agreement of export with the foreign buyer. The
dealer filed writ petition before the Madras High Court against such
order passed by the lower authorities.

Held
In order
to claim exemption from payment of tax u/s 5(3) of the CST Act, what is
required by the dealer to prove the factum of the transaction and once
he is able to do so with sufficient and satisfactory documents, the
value of the same is exempted from tax liability. No rule lays it
mandatory to produce the agreement with foreign buyers. The High Court
accordingly allowed the writ petition filed by the dealer and remanded
back the matter to assessing authority to decide the matter afresh in
the light of form H and other documents already available on record and
fresh document, if any, produced by the petitioner and after giving him
the opportunity of being heard.

levitra

Quality Water Management Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2011) 42 VST 308 (Mad).

fiogf49gjkf0d
Sales Tax – Rate of Tax – Machinery used for manufacture to produce water – Which is used for dyeing fabrics – Is machinery used for manufacture of goods – Subject to concessional rate of tax – Section 3 and Entry 3 of Schedule VIII of Tamilnadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.

Facts
The dealer sold water treatment plant and claimed concessional rate of tax u/s 3(5) of the Act being sale of plant and machinery used for manufacture of goods duly covered by Entry 3 of Schedule VIII of the Act. The Department including Tribunal did not accept claim of the dealer on the ground that the water treatment plant is not used for manufacturing any goods and as such not eligible for concessional rate of tax u/s 3(5) of the Act. The dealer filed revision petition before the Madras High Court against such decision of the Tribunal.

Held
In order to prove the claim of the concessional rate of tax u/s 3(5) of the Act, the dealer has to satisfy three conditions namely;-

i) The goods sold must be one enumerated in Schedule VIII,
ii) The goods must be used in factory site within the State, and
iii) It should be used for manufacturing of any goods.

Entry 3 of Schedule VIII covers machineries of all kinds other than those mentioned in First Schedule. There is no dispute that machinery sold by the dealer is not covered by Entry 3 of schedule VIII. The first condition is satisfied and the second condition is also satisfied as the machinery is used in factory site within the State.

The dispute is with regard to third condition of use in manufacturing any goods. The use of machinery may be direct or in aid in the manufacture. It is not in dispute that the plant is used by the customer for treating the effluent which resulted in purified water and the same is used for manufacturing fabrics. The words” used in factory site within the State for manufacture of goods “cannot be construed narrowly so as to confine it to direct use only. The use may be direct or indirect.

It is a well settled principle that a provision which is a taxing statute, granting concessional and incentives for promoting growth and development, should be construed liberally.

The High Court accordingly, allowed the revision petition filed by the dealer and held that the dealer is entitled to the concessional rate of tax and set aside the order passed by the lower authorities.

levitra

2012-TIOL-848-CESTAT-MUM MIRC Electronic Ltd. v. CCE, Thane – I.

fiogf49gjkf0d
CENVAT Credit taken of Rs 2.59 crore against service tax paid for providing after sales service during warranty period – Appellants under contractual obligation to provide after sales service during the warranty period without any consideration – strong prima facie case in favour – pre-deposit waived and stay granted.

Facts:
The applicant contented that the service of providing after sales service during the warranty period without any consideration is in relation to business and, therefore, covered by the definition of input service. The applicant submitted that the decision of the tribunal in the case of Mercantile & Indus. Developers Co. Ltd. vs. CCE, Mumbai-III reported in 2011 (21) STR 564, to make pre-deposit of part amount for hearing of the appeal was set aside by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court vide order dated 3.3.2011, after taking into consideration the judgement of the Hon’ble High Court in the case of CCE, Nagpur v. Ultratech Cement Ltd. 2010 (20) STR 577 (Bom.), and directed the Tribunal to hear the appeal on merits without insisting on pre-deposit. The applicant also relied upon the stay order in the case of Samsung India Electronics P. Ltd. vs. CCE, Noida 2009 (126) STR 570, waiving the pre-deposit of dues on the same grounds. The revenue on the other end contended that activity for which service tax was paid was conducted after clearing manufactured TVC and therefore the same could not be treated as input service.

Held:
After referring to the definition of ‘input service’ under the CENVAT Credit Rules, it was held that since the applicant was under the contractual obligation of providing after sales service during the warranty period and as they are recipients of taxable service, prima facie their case is strong. Thus, the pre-deposit of the duty, interest and penalty was waived granting the stay.

levitra

2012-TIOL-808-CESTAT-AHM Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise and Customs Ahmedabad v. M/s GE Nuova Pignone.

fiogf49gjkf0d
The respondent paid service tax for maintenance services – deducted value of spare parts under Notification No.12/2003-ST – Revenue contended, exemption not available for the value of spare parts – Commissioner (A) set-aside the order taking a view that the said service related to immovable property and during the period 01/07/2003 to 09/09/2004, the activity was not liable – Held, no merit in the appeal filed by the revenue as no evidence was adduced to support the view that turbine is a movable property and benefit of Notification No.12/2003 also available.

Facts:
The respondent was engaged in providing maintenance and repair services under the contract for the maintenance of the Gas Turbines and related ancillaries which form integral part of the power plant. The respondent paid service tax in respect of the maintenance fees after deducting the value of spare parts supplied by them under Notification No.12/2003-ST. Revenue took a view that respondent was not eligible for exemption under the said notification. The respondent also argued that gas turbines are huge and embedded to earth and thus an immovable property. The respondent relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of TTG Industries Ltd. (Madras) Manu/ SC/0459/2004, where the Apex Court observed that mudguns and drilling machines cannot be shifted from one place to another and assembled or erected and are to be operated from that place till they are worn out or discarded, and thus had held that mudguns and drilling machines erected at sites on specially made platform are immovable property.

Held:
The decisions cited by the respondent and the photographs submitted, made it clear that turbines are nothing but immovable property. The Revenue’s stand was merely based on the ground that the assessee himself has used the word ‘equipment’. However, substance of the contract indicated that turbine formed part of immovable property. Since the Revenue was not able to produce any evidence to support the view that turbine is movable property, the Commissioner (Appeals)’s decision was found correct and as such, during the period from 01/07/2003 till 09/09/2004, the service was not taxable. As regards the eligibility of deduction of value of goods, it was observed that the very fact of existence of transaction value at the time of import and issue of invoice by a local party to the recipient of service, would go to show that there was a sale of spare parts in the course of international deal and therefore, no VAT was chargeable. Just because the contract provided that replacement of parts was free of charge would not mean there was no sale. The value of spare parts formed a part of contract for maintenance and repair and therefore exemption under the Notification No.12/2003-ST was available and thus Revenue’s appeal was rejected.

levitra

2012 (27) STR 48 (Tri-Mumbai) Enpee Earthmovers v. CC & CE, Goa.

fiogf49gjkf0d
Scope of Show Cause Notice-the demand of service tax under category of “Business auxiliary services” – However, the demand confirmed under “cargo handling service”- Demand set aside as the authorities travelled beyond show cause notice.

Facts:
The appellant entered into an agreement with their client to provide excavation of mines, drilling, levelling, etc. The show cause notice proposed to levy demand on such activities considering the same as ‘Business auxiliary services’ which finally culminated in a demand order. However, in the order, the demand was confirmed under the category of ‘cargo handling services’. The order got affirmed by the CCE – Appeals. The appellant challenged the order on the ground that the adjudicating authorities travelled beyond the scope of show cause notice.

Held:
The Tribunal, agreeing to the appellant’s argument, set aside the order. While allowing the appeal, the Tribunal relied on Delhi Tribunal’s decision in case of Joginder Pal vs. Commissioner – 2011 (21) STR 666 (Tri-Del).

levitra

2012 (27) STR 99 (Tri-Del) Havells India Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur-I.

fiogf49gjkf0d
CENVAT credit taken on the basis of invoices of an importer – Importer stated in his Statement that most of the goods were actually not supplied – He issued only invoices without actual supply of goods – Appellant provided evidences like transport company’s GRs, Dharmakanta receipts, bank statements indicating payment to the supplier – Held, the importer made a statement which was not retracted by him – Credit cannot be allowed.

Facts:
The appellant was a manufacturer and availed credit on the basis of invoices issued by Shulabh Impex Incorporation supplier-importer having Dealer’s registration (supplier). The Revenue gathered intelligence that the said supplier is issuing fake invoices. On being raided, the proprietor of the supplying firm made a statement that he was not in a capacity to import goods therefore, some other people have imported goods using his IEC code and that he has issued only invoices in most of the cases without actual supply of goods. Therefore, CENVAT credit claimed by the appellant was disallowed by the Revenue. The appellant argued that as per the statement of the supplier, not all the invoices were fake. Moreover, other evidences like GRs issued by transport companies, the receipts issued by Dharmakanta (weigh bridge) and the entries in the bank statement showing payments made to such supplier proved that the appellant actually purchased goods from the supplier and therefore entitled to take the credit in respect of invoices of such supplier.

Held:
Since the statement made by the supplier was not retracted by him, the same needed to be accepted as the truth and therefore, it was held that the CENVAT credit cannot be availed by the appellant on the basis of such fake invoices.

levitra

2012 (27) STR 94 (P & H) V.G. Steel Industry v. Commissioner of Central Excise.

fiogf49gjkf0d

CENVAT credit – taken in respect of duty which had been paid in excess – Can credit be denied to the person who availed? – Held, No.

Facts:
The appellant paid duty on goods purchased in excess of the duty payable on such purchases. The supplier had paid such duty to the Government and raised the invoices for such duty. Moreover, no refund was granted to anyone in respect of such duty. Department denied the credit in the hands of the appellant, arguing that duty paid more than due can be available as refund, but not as credit. The order was confirmed by the First and the Second appellate authorities. The appellant preferred appeal before the High Court and relied upon the following judgments of the same Court as well as other Courts:
• Commissioner vs. CEGAT 202 ELT 753 (Mad)
• Commissioner vs. Guwahati Carbons Ltd. Appeal no. 42/2012 (P & H)
• Commissioner vs. Ranbaxy Labs Ltd. 203 ELT 213 (P & H)
• Commissioner vs. Swaraj Automotives Ltd. 139 ELT 504 (P & H)

Held:
The Court held that the counsel of the respondent was unable to distinguish the applicability of the above judgments and therefore, ordered in favour of the appellant.

levitra

2012 (27) STR 97 (P & H) Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiana v. Best Dyeing.

fiogf49gjkf0d
Condonation of delay 190 days – Service of order by improper mode Speed post – Revenue did not have any evidence of having served the order – Tribunal order condoning delay upheld.

Facts:
The order was dispatched by Speed Post which was not returned. However, the respondent did not receive the same. Therefore, respondent preferred an appeal after a delay of 190 days before CESTAT. The Tribunal condoned the delay and the same was challenged by the Revenue before the Honourable High Court.

Held:
The mode of serving order has been prescribed by Section 37C which does not contemplate serving order by speed post. The order passed must be served by registered post with an acknowledgement due. Moreover, the Tribunal had already held that the Revenue has no evidence of having served the order. In view of the same, it was held by the Court that delay of 190 days had rightly been condoned by the Tribunal. Moreover, the Court viewed department’s approach seriously and also ordered for a cost of Rs. 5,000 and the same was ordered to be deducted from the salary of the employee who had advised for filing the appeal.

levitra

2012 (27) STR 5 (Kar.) Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore v. LSG Sky Chef Pvt. Ltd.

fiogf49gjkf0d
Outdoor catering services – Whether value of goods can be deducted from the gross consideration charged for the purposes of calculating service tax liability – Notification No.12/2003 STHeld, similar facts were covered by judgment in case of Sky Gourmet Catering – Yes

Facts:
The respondent was engaged in providing catering services falling under “outdoor catering services”. The respondent paid service tax after deducting value of food and beverages and thus availing benefit under Notification No.12/2003, instead of availing abatement. The department denied the same on the ground that service tax needs to be paid on the gross amount collected and Notification No.12/2003 is not available to the respondent. The respondent argued on the basis of the judgment of the Apex Court in case of BSNL 2 STR 161 (SC) and relying upon the same, the Tribunal passed order in their favour. However, the Revenue filed appeal against the said order.

Held:
Referring to respondent’s own case, i.e. Sky Gourmet Catering Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner in writ Appeal no. 671-726 dated 18/04/2011 on the identical issue the appeal was disposed off. The Court held that the respondent is eligible to claim deduction in respect of goods portion while discharging the service tax liability as in the said writ, the case was examined with detailed consideration and relying on various Supreme Court judgments, the Division Bench concluded that outdoor catering contract has to be treated as composite contract under Article 366 – Clause 20A(f) of the Constitution of India and the State legislature is competent to levy sales tax on the sale aspect only i.e. the value of food. The remaining aspect including transportation is to be treated as service and service tax accordingly would be levied on service aspect and sales tax is payable on deemed sale aspect. Consequently, the substantial question of law was answered in favour of the assessee.

levitra

2012 (27) STR 4 (Bom) Fidelity Magnetics v. Commissioner of Central Excise.

fiogf49gjkf0d
Pre-deposit cannot be demanded by Tribunal when matter is remanded.

Facts:
The appellant was engaged in the manufacture of recorded audio cassettes. Aggrieved by an adverse order from the adjudicating authorities, the appellant preferred an appeal before CCE-Appeals which got dismissed on technical ground of non deposit of pre-deposit. The appellant approached CESTAT to waive the pre-deposit order. The Tribunal waived the pre-deposit. However, subsequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CCE-Appeals and restored the matter to the CCE-Appeals with a direction to the appellant to deposit 50% of the amount involved.

Held:
Having granted full waiver of pre-deposit, the Tribunal in the absence of any special circumstances ought not to have passed an order of pre-deposit. The order of the Tribunal as well as CCE-Appeals asking for pre-deposit was set aside by the Honourable High Court and CCE-Appeal was directed to dispose of the appeal on merits without insisting on pre-deposit.

levitra

Sales / Exchange / Works Contract

fiogf49gjkf0d
Introduction

Various types of transactions take place in day to day commercial world. A peculiar issue which is being considered here is about the status of a transaction where the dealer received goods for repair from his customer. The dealer replaces the same with his own goods and receives charges for repair. The old one, received from customer, is retained with him for further replacement after repair. The issue is whether on receipt of money from customer towards repair, whether the dealer would be liable to tax under Sales Tax Laws or it can be considered as transaction of exchange of goods thereby not liable to sales tax, or whether it falls in the category of works contract?

Judgment of Hon. M.S.T. Tribunal

The above issue was dealt with by Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal in the case of Kirloskar Copeland Ltd. (S. A. No. 428 of 2009 dt.18.04.2011).

In this matter, the appellant, M/s. Kirloskar Copeland Ltd., is a manufacturer & seller of compressors used in air-conditioners. It accepted defective compressors beyond the warranty period with certain fixed repair charges from customer & replaced them at the option of customer with another repaired compressor off the shelf. The defective compressor was then sent for repairs. The said repaired compressor was then available for replacement in lieu of defective compressor of another customer. The cycle goes on. The repairs charges received were mentioned in books as ‘repair charges’. This was treated by assessing officer as ‘sale’ of old repaired compressors and levied tax on the same.

Before Tribunal, reliance was placed on following judgments. G. G. Goyal Chartered Accountant C. B. Thakar Advocate VAT

(1) Gannon Dunkerley & Co. (9 STC 353) (SC)

(2) Devi Dass Gopal Krishnan (20 STC 430) (SC)

(3) Hotel Sri Lakshmi Bhavan (33 STC 444)

(4) Vishnu Agencies (P) Ltd. (42 STC 31) (SC) & others.

Tribunal held that in a transaction of cross transfer of property in defective compressor received from customer and giving repaired compressor off the shelf, there is no consensual agreement of sale supported by price or money consideration. Holding this as not a ‘sale’ transaction, Tribunal set aside the tax.

Therefore, the situation that developed is that, such receipt of money is not liable to tax under Sales Tax Laws.

Madras High Court’s Judgment

 Recently, Madras High Court had an occasion to deal with a similar issue. Reference is to the judgment of Madras High Court in Sriram Refrigeration Industries Ltd. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (53 VST 382)(Mad).

In this case also, the dealer received defective compressors, in its Tamil Nadu office, gave another repaired compressor and also charged repair charges. The defective compressor was then transferred to Hyderabad workshop to repair and keep it in rolling stock.

The Tamil Nadu Sales Tax authorities levied Sales Tax on the same considering the transaction as works contract.
Based on above facts, the arguments on behalf of assessee, can be noted as under:

“The learned counsel appearing for the petition/ assessee contended that the Tribunal was wrong in holding that it is a deemed sale. He further contended that the Tribunal is wrong in holding that the transfer of property by way of replacement of defective parts in the compressors while undertaking repair works took place within the State of Tamil Nadu and hence, the transactions are liable to tax. He further submitted that the authorities have failed to appreciate the fact that the petitioner/assessee received defective compressors from their dealers, who had earlier received the same from their respective customers to whom the said compressors were sold by them and later, these defective compressors were despatched to the factory at Hyderabad for repair and reconditioning; that the repaired compressors were taken into the petitioner’s/assessee’s floating stock in due course on receipt from Hyderabad. But soon after the receipt of defective compressors, the reconditioned compressor was given to the authorized dealer from their floating stock and flat rate was charged as repairing charges, therefore, the assessing officer ought to have appreciated that the transactions partake the character of an exchange not exigible to tax under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act.”

 In addition, it was also argued that the transaction is not works contract as use of spares etc. is negligible and not amounting to works contract. In alternative, it was argued that it is a transaction from Andhra Pradesh and not in Tamil Nadu. Hon. High Court rejected contention and upheld the levy considering it as works contract. In its judgment, Hon. High court observed as under:

 “The petitioner/assessee is the manufacturer of compressors and the said compressor is an important component in the air-conditioner/ refrigerator. The petitioner/assessee supplied refrigerators to the customers. There is no factory with repairing facility within the State of Tamil Nadu. The defective compressors were brought to the petitioner for repairs. When the defective compressor is handed over, a rectified compressor is immediately supplied by the petitioner. The petitioner, in order to have quick servicing, replaced the defective compressor by a re-conditioned compressor of the same model. The defective compressor received was subsequently transferred to the factory in Andhra Pradesh for rectification of the defects. The appellant/dealer collected repair charges for the defective compressors. The whole transaction is completed within the State. Therefore, the authorities below have taken a view that the transaction is works contract and the transfer of property in goods involved in the execution of works contract and thereby imposed sales tax on such transfers. The authorities have also held that there is no separate particulars towards labour charges and value of the property transferred. The provision of section 3B of the Act was attracted and the lower authorities correctly allowed 30 per cent deduction towards labour charges and the remaining 70 per cent was taxable at the appropriate rate. From the transaction, it is clear that the supply of defective compressor has been returned as a rectified compressor and therefore, the authorities below held that it amounted to works contract.
After the 46th Amendment, the definition of “sale” was enlarged including the transfer of property of goods involved in the execution of the works contract and thereby, imposed sales tax on such transfer and therefore, the tax on transfer of property in goods “whether as goods or in some other form” involved in the execution of works contract falls within the ambit of article 366(2A) of the Constitution of India. In this case, the defective compressor is repaired and regarding the same, the assessee also produced certain invoice wherein it is categorically stated that the repair charges were charged.”

It is further observed as under:
“26. While looking deep into the nature of transaction, it is found that the customer is never aware of the repair work being carried out in other State. The customer is not placing orders with the factory at Hyderabad for repair and return of the repaired compressor from Hyderabad to him. On the other hand, the transaction is made across the counter of the appellant by the customer, by delivering the defective compressor and receiving the repaired compressor. The point to be noted is that the parts to be replaced in the defective compressor and labour charges are arrived at and collected and even before the same compressor could be got repaired and given a replacement by a repaired compressor is made from the godown-stock. The parts to be replaced and the ‘work to be carried out’ are clearly identified as soon as the defective compressor is handed over to the appellant by the customer and charges there for are collected and the transaction is completed within the State. Thus the standard parts with particular reference to the ‘type and make’ of the compressor are determined, and thus they are only standard goods or ascertained goods. In the case of ascertained goods in a transaction of ‘sale’, the transfer of property takes place when the contract of sale or purchase is made. Accordingly, to settled position of law, the principles that apply to ‘sale’ will apply to ‘deemed sale’ as well.”

“From a reading of the above finding, it is clear that the whole transaction forms part of an implied contract for repair of the defective compressor in the State. It is only a replacement with a reconditioned compressor of the same mode instead of a defective compressor. Therefore, the authorities below are correct in coming to the conclusion that there is no contract for sale of compressors. Therefore, the transaction has to be treated only as works contract. The reconditioned compressors are handed over and the defective compressors were received by the assessee after charging repair charges and the whole transaction is within the State. After considering the nature of the transaction, all the authorities have given a categorical finding that there is a works contract and the transfer of property acquired within the State in the said contract. Further, the authorities below are correct in holding that in the absence of separate particulars towards labour charges and the value of property transferred the provisions of section 3B of the Act were attracted and allowed 30 per cent deduction towards labour charges and only the remaining turnover was chargeable to tax at the appropriate rate. The concurrent findings given by the authorities below are based on valid materials and there is no error or illegality in the order of the Tribunal warranting interference.”

Conclusion

It appears that such replacement in repair transaction will be works contract transaction. However, it is a debatable issue. It is possible to argue that replacement by a repaired compressor is normal ‘sale’ itself as there is transfer of a pre-existing repaired compressor from the assessee to the customer at a specific charge. The receipt of the defective compressor only helps the customer to bring down the take away price for the repaired compressor. In any case, in this judgment, based on finding of lower authority that the transaction is a works contract, the High court has upheld the levy as a works contract.

In the light of the above judgment, the judgment of Tribunal cited above will be correct to the extent that it is not ‘sale’ simpliciter. However, the position that it will not be covered under the Sales Tax Laws at all, cannot be a correct position. Though not as normal sale, but by way of a works contract, it will be taxable under the Sales Tax Laws.

EXPORTED SERVICES

fiogf49gjkf0d
Preliminary

Under the Export of Services Rules, 2005 (ESR) which were in force prior to 01/07/2012, it was provided in Rule 4 that, any service which is taxable under clause (105) of section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994 (‘Act’), may be exported without payment of service tax. Further clarifications were issued in the context of proportionate credit rules under CENVAT Credit as to the treatment to be given to “exported services”.

W.e.f. 01/07/2012, ESR have ceased to exist, and Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012 (POP Rules) have been introduced. Importantly, for the first time, the concept of “exported services” has been specifically introduced under Service Tax Rules, 1994 (ST Rules).

This feature discusses the concept of “exported service” and consequent implications in terms of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 (CENVAT Rules) and Point of Taxation Rules, 2011 (POT Rules) in regard to “exported services” However, it needs to be expressly noted that, for determination as to whether a service constitutes “export” or not, provisions under ST Rules should be read with the provisions under POP Rules.

Relevant Statutory Provisions

ST Rules Rule 6A – (Export of Services)

“(1) The provision of any service provided or agreed to be provided shall be treated as export of service when –

a) The provider of service is located in the taxable territory,

b) The recipient of service is located outside India,

c) The service is not a service specified in section 66D of the Act,

 d) The place of provision of the service is outside India,

 e) The payment for such service has been received by the provider of service in convertible foreign exchange, and

f) The provider of service and recipient of service are not merely establishments of a distinct person in accordance with item (b) of Explanation 2 of clause (44) of Section 65B of the Act.

(2) Where any service is exported, the Central Government may, by notification, grant rebate of service tax or duty paid on input services or inputs, as the case may be used in providing such service and the rebate shall be allowed subject to such safeguards, conditions and limitations, as may be specified, by the Central Government, by notification.”

CENVAT Rules
Rule 2(e) “exempted service” means a –

 (1) Taxable service which is exempt from the whole of the service tax leviable thereon; or

 (2) Service, on which no service tax is leviable under section 66B of the Finance Act; or

(3) Taxable service whose part of value is exempted on the condition that no credit of inputs and input services, used for providing such taxable service, shall be taken; but shall not include a service which is exported in terms of rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994”.

Rule 5: Refund of CENVAT Credit

 “(1) A manufacturer who clears a final product or an intermediate product for export without payment of duty under bond or letter of undertaking, or a service provider who provides an output service which is exported without payment of service tax, shall be allowed refund of CENVAT Credit……… Explanation 1 – For the purpose of this rule – (1) “export service” means a service which is provided as per Rule 6A of the Service tax Rules, 1994.”

Rule 6 – Obligation of a manufacturer or producer of final products and a provider of output service “………..

(7) The provisions of sub-rules (1), (2), (3) and (4) shall not be applicable in case the taxable services are provided, without payment of service tax, to a unit in a Special Economic Zone or to a developer of a Special Economic Zone for their authorized operations or when a service is exported.

(8) For the purpose of this rule, a service provided or agreed to be provided shall not be an exempted service when –

(a) the service satisfies the conditions specified under rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 and the payment for the service is to be received in convertible foreign currency; and

(b) Such payment has *not been received for a period of six months or such extended period as may be allowed from time-totime by the Reserve Bank of India, from the date of provision.” [*Note: The use of the word ‘not’ appears erroneous].

Exported Service – Whether “taxable service” or “exempted service”

Under Central Excise, it has been a settled position that, exported goods are in the nature of taxable goods and not exempted goods. However under service tax, there was no clarity and issues continued to be raised. In the context of CENVAT Credit, vide Circular No. 868/6/2008 – CX dt. 9/5/08 it was clarified, as under: ……………

6 Whether export of service without payment of service tax under Export of Service Rules shall be treated as exempted service for the purpose of rule 6(3)?

No, export of services without payment of service tax are not to be treated as exempted services. W.e.f. 01/07/2012, Rule 2(e) of CENVAT Rules which defines “exempted services”, clearly provides that, services exported in terms of Rule 6A of ST Rules, would not be “exempted services”.

However, it needs to be expressly noted that, this is for the purpose of CENVAT Rules only.

 Brief Analysis of Rule 6A of ST Rules – “export of service”

 Each of the specified conditions is discussed hereafter.

 a) Service provider should be located in the taxable territory. This is in line with the concept of export which presupposes that service is usually provided from taxable territory to non– taxable territory. In this regard, the following definitions under the Finance Act, 1994 as amended (FA12) need to be noted.

Section 64 of FA 12

“(1) This Chapter extends to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir.” ……… Section 65(27) of FA 12 “ ‘India’ means, –

 (i) the territory of the Union as referred to in clauses (2) and (3) of article 1 of the Constitution;

(ii) its territorial waters, continental shelf, exclusive economic zone or any other maritime zone as defined in the Territorial Waters. Continental Shelf, Exclusive Economic Zone and other Maritime Zones Act, 1976 (80 of 1976);

(iii) the seabed and the subsoil underlying the territorial waters;

(iv) the air space above its territory and territorial waters and (v) the installations, structures and vessels located in the continental shelf of India and the exclusive economic zone of India, for the purposes of prospecting or extraction or production of mineral oil and natural gas and supply thereof;” Section 65 (52) of FA 12 “ “Taxable territory” means the territory to which the provisions of this Chapter apply.” Thus, simply stated, service provider should be located in India except in the State of Jammu & Kashmir.

b) Service recipient should be located outside India. Here also, it is to be understood that Jammu & Kashmir is otherwise a non-taxable territory. However, if recipient is located in Jammu & Kashmir, the condition of location outside India is not satisfied. This is also in line with the general concept of ‘export’.

 c) Service should not be a service specified in the Negative List of Services under section 66D of FA 12. This is very important inasmuch it spells out an important legislative intent that services which are specified in the Negative List are totally excluded from the service tax ambit. Hence, the question of the same being regarded as ‘export’, does not arise at all.

d)    The place of provision of service is outside India. This does raise many questions inasmuch as POP Rules contemplate that services could be provided by a service provider based in the taxable territory to a service recipient based in a non–taxable territory.

For instance, if the services are physically provided/performed outside India, the same would be completely out of the service tax ambit and hence, the question of the same being considered as ‘export’ would not arise at all. This anomaly also existed under ESR which was in force prior to 01/07/2012.

In this regard, attention is drawn to the following clarifications by the department in the context of some specific services:

CBEC Circular No. B-11/3/98-TRU dt. 7/10/98 – Market Research Agencies

Para 6.3

“An issue has been raised whether service tax is payable in respect of services rendered to foreign clients in India, and in respect of such services rendered abroad. It is clarified that service tax is payable on all taxable services rendered in India whether to an Indian or foreign client. However, services rendered abroad shall not attract service tax levy as service tax extends only to services provided within India.”

Dept Trade Notice No 1/2000 dt. 27/4/2000, Pune I – Tour Operator Services

Para 6.7

“Service tax on services rendered by tour opera-tors is only on services rendered in India in respect of a tour within Indian Territory. Services rendered by tour operators in respect of out-bound tourism i.e. for tours abroad, do not attract service tax. In case of a composite tour which combines tours within India and also outside India, service tax will be leviable only on services rendered for tours within India provided separate billing has been done by the tour operators for services provided in respect of tours within India.”

This remains an unresolved issue. Possibly the only logical reason appears to be treatment for determination of availability of CENVAT Credit.

e)    Realisation of consideration in convertible foreign exchange by a service provider. Compliance of this condition has assumed increased significance.

It needs to be expressly noted that, w.e.f. 01/07/2011, POT Rules have been introduced, whereby there is a liability to pay service tax on the service provider irrespective of realisation from the service recipient. Hence, in cases where consideration is not received (either fully or partly) by a service provider from the service recipient within the time limit permitted by RBI, the benefit of export would be denied subject to discussion in paras hereafter and service tax liability may be triggered from the date of completion of service in terms of POT Rules with applicable interest.

In cases where payments are not received by an exporter service provider within the time permitted by RBI, it would be advisable that appropriate procedure under RBI Regulations (like seeking an extension of time for unrealised proceeds) are complied with by service providers.

(f)    Service provider and service recipient should not be merely establishments of a distinct person in terms of Explanation 2(b) (should be read as 3) to section 65B(44) of the Act which defines ‘Service’. The said explanation reads as follows:

“(b) an establishment of a person in the taxable territory and any of his other establishment in a non-taxable territory shall be treated as establishments of distinct persons”.

At this point, it is required to note the relevant extracts from Department clarifications titled “Education Guide” dated 20/06/2012 issued in the context of Negative List based taxation of services introduced w.e.f. 01/07/2012 reproduced below:

Para 10.2.2

“Can there be an export between an establishment of a person in taxable territory and another establishment of same person in a non–taxable territory?

No. Even though such persons have been specified as distinct persons under the Explanation to clause (44)    of section 65B, the transaction between such establishments have not been recognized as exports under the above stated rule.”

Para 2.4.1

“What is the significance of the phrase “carried out by a person for another”?

The phrase “provided by one person to another” signifies that services provided by a person to self are outside the ambit of taxable service. Example of such service would include a service provided by one branch of a company to another or to its head office or vice versa.”

Para 2.4.2

“Are there any exceptions wherein services provided by a person to oneself are taxable?

Yes, two exceptions have been carved out to the general rule that only services provided by a person to another are taxable. These exceptions, contained in Explanation 2 (read as ‘3’) of clause (44) of section 65B, are :

  •     “An establishment of a person located in tax-able territory and another establishment of such person located in non-taxable territory are treated as establishments of distinct persons.” [Similar provision exists in section 66A(2). The said section is effective till 30/06/2012].

  •    “An unincorporated association or body of persons and members thereof are also treated as distinct persons.” [Also exists presently in part as explanation to section 65].

Implications of these classificatory remarks are that inter se provision of services between such per-sons, deemed to be separate persons, are likely to be taxed by the department. For example, services provided by a club to its members and services provided by the branch office of a multinational company to the headquarters of the multinational company located outside India would be treated as taxable provided other conditions relating to taxability of service are satisfied.

The term ‘establishment’ has not been defined under FA12/POP Rules/ST Rules. However, in this regard useful reference can be made to, “Education Guide” dated 20/06/2012 available on www. cbec.gov.in

In the line with the legislative intent, whereby services availed from an establishment based outside India by another establishment of the same legal entity in India are deemed to be taxed under reverse charge (as per Education Guide at least), it is being provided that in a reverse case scenario the benefit of export would be denied in such cases even if all the other conditions of Rule 6A of ST Rules are satisfied.

Despite the deeming fiction, which was introduced u/s 66A of the Act (in force upto 30/06/2012) and has been continued w.e.f. 01/07/2012 [section 65B(44) – Explanation 2], whether transactions between two establishments within one legal entity can be taxed at all under service tax, remains an unresolved legal issue which would have to be judicially tested.

Implications in case of delays in realisation of export proceeds

An important practical issue that would arise in such cases is, what would happen in cases where there is a delay in realisation of proceeds for “exported services” and application for extension has been made before RBI, and the case comes up for scrutiny/inquiry by the service tax authorities?

Similar issues did arise under income tax, wherein there was a procedure which prescribed for an application to be made to the Commissioner for seeking extension of time in cases of delays in realization of export proceeds. It was commonly found that applications were not disposed off/ nor proceeds realised till the time of completion of assessment. In many cases, assessing officers disallowed deduction claimed u/s 80HHC (subject to rectification) and raised demands which had to be appealed against.

It is felt that, similar situations may arise under service tax as well, whereby subject to discussions in paras hereafter, service tax authorities may raise protective demands with interest which would have to be contested by service providers. It would be advisable for the service providers to make appropriate disclosures in service tax returns.

Implications in cases where proceeds for exported services are not realised either fully or partially.

As stated earlier, non–realisation of proceeds for exported services, may trigger liability to service tax with interest from the point of completion of service in terms of POT Rules.

Further, it needs to be expressly also noted that, POT Rules do not have any provisions for abatements of service tax in case of bad debts (either fully or partially). Hence, this could cast an additional burden on the “exported services” provider, in addition to the loss on account of bad debt.

Implications under CENVAT Rules/ST Rules in cases of non–realisation of proceeds for exported services

a)    It has been a settled position in the context of duty drawback under the Customs law, that in case of non–realisation of export proceeds, drawback benefits received by an exporter are required to be paid back to the Government with appropriate interest.

b)    On the lines of duty draw back rules, it would appear that, refunds availed by an “exported services” provider under Rule 5 of CENVAT Rules/Notifications issued in terms of Rule 6A of ST Rules would have to be paid back to the Government with appropriate interest.

c)    On a combined reading of Rule 2(e) & Rule 6(8) of CENVAT Rules, it prima facie appears that, in cases where proceeds are not realised for “exported services”, the said services could be treated as “exempted services” with consequent implications.

This appears to be inconsistent considering the fact that, in cases where proceeds for exported services are not realised as prescribed in Rule 6A of ST Rules, export benefit would be denied and service tax liability may arise. Hence, if appropriate service tax liability has been discharged by an “exported services” provider, there should not be any adverse implications in terms of CENVAT Rules.

POP Rules v. ST Rules:

POP Rules were introduced w.e.f. 01/07/2012 in terms of the powers granted u/s 66C of FA 12 to determine the place where services are provided/ agreed to be provided or deemed to have been provided/agreed to be provided. This is essentially done to determine the taxability of cross border transactions. In addition to the said POP Rules, Rule 6A as discussed above in detail is introduced under ST Rules w.e.f. 01/07/2012, specifying conditions for determination of ‘export’ service. The said Rule 6A has not been made subject to POP Rules. Further, the clarification of the Government dated 20/06/2012 (para10.21 of Education Guide), clearly states that all the conditions under the said Rule 6A should be satisfied for a service to be treated as ‘exported’ service. On this backdrop, an important issue that arises for consideration is what would happen in cases where all the conditions specified in Rule 6A are not satisfied (for example, realisation in convertible foreign exchange) but the transaction is outside the taxable territory as per POP Rules.

According to one school of thought, such transaction would be regarded as non-taxable and therefore for the purpose of CENVAT Rules, the same would be treated as “exempted service” and hence the benefit of credits/refunds would be denied. The amendments in CENVAT Rules w.e.f. 01/07/2012 seem to support this line of thinking. According to an alternative school of thought, non-compliance of any of the conditions specified in Rule 6A of ST Rules could trigger service tax liability from the date of completion of service as per POP Rules with interest. This would result in apparent inconsistency vis-à-vis amendments in CENVAT Rules w.e.f. 01/07/2012.

To conclude, it appears that it is a contentious issue which needs to be speedily addressed/clarified to avoid litigation in this regard.

Commissioner of Sales Tax V. Dev Enterprises Ltd. [2011] 42 VST 504 (BOM)

fiogf49gjkf0d
VAT-Rate of Tax – Entries in Schedule-Plastic Footwear (Moulded) – Means made wholly of plastic – Entry 74 of Schedule C of The Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002

Facts
The Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal, in an appeal filed by the dealer against the order of DDQ passed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax, held that footwear predominantly made from plastic is covered within meaning of the description of “Plastic Footwear (Moulded)” used in entry 74 of Schedule C of the MVAT Act, 2002. The Commissioner of Sales Tax filed an appeal before the Bombay High Court against the said decision of the Tribunal.

Held
The Entry 74 of Schedule C, adverts to plastic footwear, which has to be construed as it stands. Admittedly, the sole of the footwear is made of PVC compound; the upper portion is made out of plastic coated textile, which is used as base in order to avoid direct contact with skin. The question whether the footwear is made from plastic can not be determined on the basis of the notes annexed to section XII of Chapter 64 to the Excise Tariff. In order to fall for classification under Schedule Entry C-74, the product must constitute Plastic Footwear. Adding the expression “predominant” to the interpretative process is to add words to the entry; that is to amend the entry – something that is impermissible. Further, the High Court noting the fact that in the market footwear made completely of plastic available for sale held that the entry adverts to plastic footwear; it must mean what it states.

The High Court allowed the appeal filed by the Department and held that the Tribunal committed error in holding that footwear which is predominantly made of plastic and made by a moulding process gets covered by the description of plastic moulded footwear.

levitra

(2011) 21 STR 297 (Tri – Mumbai) – CCEx., Nagpur vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd.

fiogf49gjkf0d
Input services used outside factory eligible for CENVAT credit if nexus with ‘manufacture’ is established.

Facts:
A manufacturer of cement claimed CENVAT credit on repairs and maintenance services of river pump used for generation of electricity outside the factory. Such electricity was used in the manufacture of final product. CENVAT credit was denied on the basis that the services are received outside the factory premises and did not have nexus with the manufacture of final products.

Held:
The definition of “input services” does not deny credit if services are utilised outside the factory premises. The nexus in this case with manufacture of final product is established indirectly. In the case of the appellant for the similar issue, the Tribunal had allowed CENVAT credit. Input services used outside factory premises were eligible.

levitra

Whether penalty is discretionary or automatic? – Held, discretionary – What is reasonable cause? – Held, bonafide dispute whether tax is payable or not is a reasonable cause for waiver u/s. 80 – Penalties to be interpreted strictly – penalty cannot be imposed u/s. 76 and 78 simultaneously etc. – Further, if the penalty is levied within the range prescribed, the Revisional authority could not enhance it.

fiogf49gjkf0d
2. 2012 (27) STR 225 (Kar) CST – Bangalore v. Motor World
    
Whether penalty is discretionary or automatic? – Held, discretionary – What is reasonable cause?
–    Held, bonafide dispute whether tax is payable or not is a reasonable cause for waiver u/s. 80
–    Penalties to be interpreted strictly – penalty cannot be imposed u/s. 76 and 78 simultaneously etc. – Further, if the penalty is levied within the range prescribed, the Revisional authority could not enhance it.

Facts:

It was a batch of cases on an identical issue wherein Respondents had paid penalties levied by adjudicating authorities, inspite of having proved that there was a reasonable cause for non payment/ short payment of taxes. The Commissioner exercising powers under the then section 84, revised the orders of lower authorities to enhance the penalties.

Held:

 The imposition of penalty is not automatic. Not only the ingredients of the penal sections should exist but also there should be absence of reasonable cause for the failure to comply with the law. The adjudicating authority has the discretion to levy penalty within the limits prescribed under the law. Penalty sections to be construed strictly and if there are two views possible, the one which is favourable to the assessee should be preferred. If the penalty levied is not less than the minimum limit prescribed, the revisional authority has no power to enhance the same on the ground that it is less. If the adjudicating authority exercising powers conferred u/s. 80 has held that there was a reasonable cause for non levy of penalty, revisional authority can’t take a contrary stand and levy penalty. No penalty can be imposed u/s. 76 as well as section 78 for the same offence.

levitra

Wrong availment of CENVAT Credit – Assessee not paid tax on roaming charges received from other operators but availing CENVAT Credit on output services in excess of prescribed limit of 35% – Availment of CENVAT Credit on exempted services not disclosed – Deliberate suppression and not mere omission – Held – Extended period applicable – Penalty levied u/s. 76 and 78 held valid.

fiogf49gjkf0d
1. 2012 (53) VST 139 (Raj) – Vodafone Digilink Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur-II

Wrong availment of CENVAT Credit – Assessee not paid tax on roaming charges received from other operators but availing CENVAT Credit on output services in excess of prescribed limit of 35% – Availment of CENVAT Credit on exempted services not disclosed – Deliberate suppression and not mere omission – Held – Extended period applicable – Penalty levied u/s. 76 and 78 held valid.


Facts:

The appellant was engaged in the business of providing cellular telephone service. Apart from charges received from its own subscribers, it also received roaming charges from other operators towards roaming facility provided by the appellant to the subscribers of the latter. The appellant did not pay any tax on the amount so received towards roaming charges and utilised the entire service tax credit availed of on various input services for payment of service tax without any restriction of 35% as required under Rule 3(5) of the Service Tax Credit Rules, 2002 and nowhere disclosed the said excess amount so utilised.

Held:

The appellant wilfully suppressed the facts of availment of input credit in respect of exempted services in excess of the prescribed limit of 35%. When the limit is prescribed, facts ought to have been mentioned clearly. When exempted service was availed of in excess of the prescribed limit, it was incumbent upon the appellant to disclose it. Thus, the case being covered under the proviso to s/s (1) of section 73 of the Act, the case is not one of mere omission to give correct information but was devised deliberately to evade tax liability. Not finding any involvement of substantial question of law, the Court dismissed the appeal.

levitra

(2011) 21 STR 469 (All.) – CCEx., Ghaziabad vs. Ashoka Metal Decor (P) Ltd.

fiogf49gjkf0d
CENVAT credit of excise duty payment taken and reversed before utilisation does not attract interest u/s.11AB of Central Excise read with Rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules.

Facts:
The respondent paid excess excise duty and took CENVAT credit of such excess excise duty suo moto. However, the CENVAT credit was reversed before its utilisation. The Department contended that once it is established that CENVAT credit is wrongly availed, liability of interest is automatic and it has no relation with non-utilisation of such CENVAT Credit.

Held:
The amount wrongly credited to the CENVAT Credit Account which is not utilised, does not cause any loss to revenue nor does it benefit the assessee. It does not amount to improper payment of duty or non-payment of duty or late payment of duty. In the present case, the assessee instead of claiming refund availed CENVAT Credit. Moreover, the same was reversed subsequently before its utilisation. Therefore, following the Apex Court’s decision in case of Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (2007) (215 ELT 3), the same amounts to “not taking credit”, and therefore Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 (dealing with recovery of CENVAT credit wrongly taken or erroneously refunded) and section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (providing for interest on delayed payment of duty) would not apply.

Comments: In view of the Supreme Court ruling in case of Ind Swift Labs vs. Union of India (reported above), the above judgment may not hold good. As per Hon’ble Supreme Court and subsequent Circular of the Board dated 14/03/2011, interest is payable even on CENVAT credit availed wrongly.

levitra

(2011) 21 STR 324 (Kar.) – CCEx., Belgaum vs. Fluid Dynamics Pvt. Ltd.

fiogf49gjkf0d
The Department does not have powers to file appeal on its own u/s. 35 of Central Excise – Department cannot be considered “aggrieved person”.

Facts:
The revenue filed appeal under section 35G of the Central Excise Act for demanding interest on differential liability on issuance of supplementary invoices. It had filed appeal to the Appellate Tribunal under section 35 of Central Excise Act, 1944.

Held:
The Department does not have power to prefer an appeal on its own u/s.35 of Central Excise Act since Department cannot be considered as an “aggrieved person”. Therefore, the appeal without being discussed was dismissed.

levitra

(2011) 265 ELT 3 (SC) – Union of India vs. Ind. Swift Laboratories Ltd.

fiogf49gjkf0d
CENVAT credit taken wrongly and utilised later attracts interest from the date of availment and not from the date of utilisation – Rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules being unambiguous does not require to be read down.

Facts:
The company manufacturing bulk drugs availed CENVAT credit based on invoices for inputs and capital goods issued allegedly without accompanying material. After receiving show cause notice and replying to the same, the company filed application for settlement of proceedings and deposited entire duty of Rs.5.71 crores. The Settlement Commission found that wrongful CENVAT credit was taken from the year 2001 to 31/03/2006 whereas the payments were made in February 2006 and on various dates in March 2006 and in November 2006. The Commission ordered the assessee to pay interest from the date of availment of credit till the date of payment. The company disputed calculation of interest from the date of availment instead of the date of utilisation. The Commission considered the final order as conclusive and rejected its application. The company did not pay interest in terms of the final order. Therefore the balance amount was called for by the authorities. Against the said demand, a writ in the P&H High Court was filed. Allowing it, the High Court held that mere availment of credit does not create any liability of payment of duty and further held that on a conjoint reading of section 11AB of the Tariff Act and that of Rules 3 and 4 of the Credit Rules, interest cannot be claimed from the date of wrong availment of CENVAT credit and it would be payable only from the date the CENVAT credit was wrongly utilised. The interference of the High court was challenged by the authorities.

The Supreme Court examined Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules dealing with interest to consider the finding recorded by the High Court by way of reading down the provision of Rule 14 as the issue before the Court was to decide whether the interest was leviable from the date of availment of credit or the date of utilisation.

Held:
Rule14 specifically provides for recovery of interest where CENVAT credit is taken or utilised wrongly by the manufacturer or the service provider or refunded erroneously to either of them. The High Court misunderstood this provision and wrongly read it down as statutory provision is generally read down only when the same is capable of being declared unconstitutional or illegal. No harmonious construction is required to be given to the aforesaid provision, which is unambiguous and exists all by itself. It is not permissible to import provisions in a taxing statute so as to supply any assumed deficiency. The order of the Settlement Commission thus was restored.

levitra

(2011) 21 STR 353 (SC) – P. C. Paulose, Sparkway Enterprises vs. CCEx.

fiogf49gjkf0d
An Agent appointed by Airport Authority of India for collection of admission charges is considered a provider of airport services – u/s. 65(105)(zzm), the assessee is liable to discharge service tax.

Facts:
The appellant entered into a license agreement with the Airport Authority of India (AAI) under which they were authorised to collect airport admission ticket charges and were granted space at the airport. All the expenses to provide services to passengers and visitors were to be borne by the appellant. Moreover, the appellant had to bear all rates, outgoings taxes etc. The revenue contended that as per the statutory definition of Section 65(105) (zzm) of Finance Act, 1994 and circular dated 17.09.2004, the appellant was responsible to discharge service tax liability whereas, the appellant were of the view that AAI, being the principal service provider, was liable for service tax.

Held:
The appellant is authorised by the Airport Authority of India to provide services and therefore, it steps into the shoes of the Airport Authority of India and is liable to pay service tax.

levitra

Redevelopment of properties (commercial/ residential):

fiogf49gjkf0d
Redevelopment of properties (commercial/ residential):

Background:
During the past decade, redevelopment of society/ properties has tremendously increased mainly in metropolitan cities like Mumbai. Increased redevelopment activities have inter alia attracted attention of the Preventive/Anti-Evasion Wing of the Service Tax Dept. and inquiry is initiated or show-cause notice is issued in this regard. Some of the significant implications impacting redevelopment activity are discussed hereafter.

Common features in redevelopment:

Some of the commonly found features redevelopment arrangements are listed below:

(i) Societies usually own buildings and are often lessees of the land owned by MHADA/other bodies on which the building is built;

(ii) These societies are entitled to additional FSI under relevant regulations or statute, which can be used for development upon payment of appropriate premium;

(iii) Such societies grant development right to the builders/developers to demolish existing building and construct new buildings. Builders/ developers pay the appropriate premium for additional FSI entitled to the society and utilise the same for additional construction and/or development;

(iv) Each existing occupant in the building of the society, is given a flat/office in the newly constructed building of a bigger area than the existing area free of cost or without any additional consideration;

(v) The entire cost of new building and other related cost is fully borne by the builders or developers;

(vi) Builder or the developer is fully entitled to the proceeds from sale of remaining flats/ shops/ commercial premises to be constructed by him on the society’s properties through sale in the open market; and

(vii) Existing occupants also receive a specified monetary compensation and reimbursement towards rentals for alternate accommodation during the period of demolition of old building and construction of new building.

Any redevelopment arrangement between a builder or a developer and the society is mutually beneficial to all the affected parties or can be described as a barter deal inasmuch as:

(i) In addition to monetary compensation and reimbursement of rentals, existing occupants get a flat/office of a higher area in a newly constructed building at no extra cost;

(ii) The society would get newly constructed property with enhanced area and improved or better facilities;

(iii) Builders/developers gain through realisation of sale/proceeds of additional flats/commercial premises at market price which far outweighs the cost of obtaining additional FSI, construction cost of the new building and payment of rentals to existing occupants, all put together.

Redevelopment: Whether a service by a builder or developer?

Service tax authorities have issued show-cause notices contending that the builders/developers do not own the property undertaken for redevelopment and ‘service’ is therefore provided by the builder/developer to the society. The issue therefore needs to be analysed in detail.

In order to be liable to service tax, it is essential that, ‘service’ is provided by a service provider. The term ‘service’ is not defined under the Finance Act, 1994 (‘Act’). However, some meanings attributed to ‘Service’ are as follows:

(i) ‘Service’ — Black’s Law Dictionary:

The act of doing something useful for a person or company for a fee.

A person or company whose business is to do useful things for others, a linen service.

An intangible commodity in the form of human effort, such as labour, skill, or advice, contract for services.

(ii) ‘Service’ — Magus Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI, (2008) 11 STR 225 (Gau.)

In the said ruling, the following was observed by the Gauhati High Court:

Para 29 “In the light of the various statutory definitions of ‘service’, one can safely define ‘service’ as an act of helpful activity, an act of doing something useful, rendering assistance or help. Service does not involve supply of goods; ‘service’ rather connotes transformation of use/user of goods as a result of voluntary intervention of ‘service provider’ and is an intangible commodity in the form of human effort. To have ‘service’, there must be a ‘service provider’ rendering services to some other person(s), who shall be recipient of such ‘service’.”

(iii) Service — Jetilite (India) Ltd. v. CCE, (2011) 30 STT 324 (New Delhi — CESTAT)

An extract from the Tribunal’s observation is provided below:

Para 65 “Being so, taking into consideration the common understanding of the definition of the term ‘service’ as well as the definition of the term ‘taxable service’ under the said Act, it is evident that the service contemplated under section 65(19) is the one which relates to service rendered by the service recipient. It may be taxable service or may not be so. However, the situation invariably contemplates existence of two entities in order to bring the case within the scope of definition of business auxiliary service. One entity which provides service to others is called a service recipient. Another entity is one which provides service to the service recipient in relation to the service rendered by such service recipient to others, and such entity is called the service provider.”

Considering the fact that different types of redevelopment agreements are entered into between the societies and the builders/developers, it would be impossible to lay down any general proposition as to whether a redevelopment arrangement results in a service provided by a builder/developer to a society or not.

A redevelopment arrangement is usually for the mutual benefit of the affected parties to the contract. Though not described, it appears to be in the nature of a joint venture arrangement, wherein role of each party is specified and contracted for. Hence, there is a possibility of a view depending on the terms of an agreement that redevelopment arrangement does not result in any ‘service’ provided by builders/developers to the societies. At the most, services performed in pursuance of redevelopment arrangement by builders/developers, amount only to self-service which cannot be subjected to service tax.

In this regard the following observation of the Tribunal in Rolls Royce Industrial Power (I) Ltd. v. Commissioner, (2006) 3 STR 292 (Tribunal) may be noted:

“……………….. The terms of the contract do not envisage or involve providing any consulting or engineering help to the owner. The operator is fully autonomous and responsible for the performance of operation and maintenance. Whatever engineering issues are involved, it is for the operator to find solutions for, and attend to in the course of operation and maintenance. He is not required to render any advice or to take any orders from the owner. He cannot pass on the responsibility for operating the plant in any manner to the owner. Thus, there are no two parties, one giving advice and the other accepting it. Service tax is attracted only in a case involving rendering of service, in this case, engineering consultancy. That situation does not take place in the present case. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the duty demand raised is not sustainable”

Attention is also drawn to the following observation of the Bangalore Tribunal in Precot Mills Ltd. v. CCE, (2006) 5 STT 35 (Bang.-CESTAT)

“………………

M/s. Precot Mills Ltd. is a corporate entity. It has got various units which function as separate profit centres. When service is rendered by one unit to the other, debit note is raised for the value of service in order to evaluate the perfor-mance of a particular unit. Ultimately there is only one balance sheet for the legal entity for M/s. Precot Mills Ltd. and not for the separate unit. In other words, the appellants, M/s. Precot Mills Ltd. do not receive any valuable consider-ation for service rendered by one unit of the appellant to the other unit, in view of the fact that each unit is part of the same legal entity which is the appellant. To put it differently, when one renders service to oneself, as in the present case, there is no question of leviability of service tax.”

Although the facts in both the above cases are dissimilar, the ratio of the rulings is relevant to the issue of redevelopment arrangement.

Further, as regards the contention that there is no liability to service tax in case of self-supply of service, further support can be found from the following:

    Gauhati High Court Ruling in Magus Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI, (2008) 11 STR 225 (Gau.)

    Dept. Circular dated 17-9-2004 on Estate Build-ers in regard to Construction Services

    Master Circular dated 23-8-2007 in regard to applicability of service tax on real estate builders

    Dept. Circular dated 29-1-2009 regarding im-position of service tax on builders

Nevertheless, it needs to be expressly noted that whether a particular redevelopment arrangement results in any service provided by a builder/devel-oper to a society or not would depend upon the facts and circumstances and in particular terms and structure of a redevelopment arrangement. Further, it is a highly contentious issue. If a view is adopted that there is no service provided by a builder/developer to a society, the same would have to satisfy the judicial test.

Applicable Service categories:
Service tax provisions do not contain any spe-cific category for redevelopment. Hence taxability would have to be determined on the basis of service categories relevant to construction activi-ties viz.:

    i) Commercial or industrial construction [section 65(25b)/65(105)(zzq) of the Act]

    ii) Construction of Complex [section 65(30a)/65(91a)/65(105)(zzzh) of the Act]

    iii) Works Contract [section 65(105)(zzzza) of the Act]

A substantial part of construction carried out in terms of a redevelopment arrangement would have to satisfy the essential taxability criteria specified in the definitions stated above in order to be made liable to service tax.

The scope of construction of complex/commercial or industrial construction liable to service tax has been expanded w.e.f. 1-7-2010 to tax advances received by builders/developers from prospective buyers for flats/offices which are under construction. The relevant extracts from Dept. Clarification clarifying the scope of expanded service in the Ministry’s Circular Letter D.O.F. No. 334/1/2010-TRU (Annexure B), dated 26-2-2010 was reproduced in February 2011 issue of BCAJ and therefore is not repeated here (refer para 2 on page 57)

In this context and as analysed in February Issue of BCAJ, Notification No. 36/2010-ST, dated 28-6-2010 provides that advances received by the builders/developers from prospective buyers prior to 1-7-2010 for flats/offices under construction have been exempted from the purview of expanded scope of construction of complex/commercial or industrial construction service. This exemption is extremely relevant inasmuch as, in many show-cause notices issued by the service tax authorities in the issue of redevelopment, the advances received by builders/developers from prospective buyers for the subsequent period is treated as value of taxable service, provided by a builder/developer to a society.


Redevelopment of flats/offices of existing occupants made prior to 18-4-2006 without any monetary consideration — Free of cost:

It is now a settled position that taxability to service tax is to be determined at the time when service is provided. In this regard, reliance can be placed on the Gujarat High Court ruling in Reliance Industries Ltd. v. CCE, (2010) 19 STR 807 (Guj.) and other rulings as well. Hence, in the context of construction services, taxability is to be determined based on the date on which relevant construction is completed.

Section 67 of the Act relating to valuation of a taxable service was significantly amended w.e.f. 18-4-2006. One of the more significant amendment relates to enactment of specific provisions for valu-ation of taxable services in cases where service is rendered for a consideration not determined in monetary terms (either fully or partly). This is discussed in para 1.6 below.

In terms of these provisions read with Rule 6 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 as existed prior to 18-4-2006, no service tax is payable if services were rendered free or without any monetary consideration.

Vide, CBEC Circular No. 62/11/2003-ST, dated 21-8-2003, it was clarified that, even if a service is taxable, there will be no service tax if service is provided free, as value of service tax will be zero.

In the light of the foregoing, it would appear that in cases where flats/offices are allotted to existing occupants of a society in the new building (constructed prior to 18-4-2006) free of cost in pursuance of redevelopment agreement between a society and the builders/developers, there would be no liability to service tax in terms of the valuation provisions as they existed prior to 18-4-2006.

Redevelopment made for existing occupants after 18-4-2006:


Service tax is demanded in regard to flats/offices built and allotted to existing occupants free of cost by treating the entire sale proceeds of additional flats/commercial premises received by the builders/developers in the subsequent years as the value of taxable services. Hence this aspect needs a detailed discussion, more particularly after the introduction of the Valuation Rules w.e.f. 18-4-2006. The amended section 67 of the Act effective from 18-4-2006 has conceptually changed the provisions relating to valuation of service for the levy of service tax. In addition, Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006 (Valuation Rules) have been notified to come into force from 19-4-2006.

Prior to its substitution, section 67 of the Act read as “For the purpose of this Chapter, the value of taxable service shall be the gross amount charged by service provider for such service provided or to be provided by him”. The newly introduced section 67 provides for ‘cost of service in the hands of recipient of service’ and ‘value of similar service’ as the basis for valuation, which is in complete departure from the earlier position in law which restricted itself to ‘gross amount charged’ by a service provider. Thus in the light of amended section 67 read with the Valuation Rules, the following is analysed.

Value of ‘similar’ service:

According to Rule 3(a) of the Valuation Rules, in case of a taxable service where consideration received does not consist wholly of money, then value is required to be determined, based on the gross amount charged by a service provider for similar service provided to any other person in ordinary course of trade.

Brief analysis of ‘similar’ — Some of the meanings attributed to ‘Similar’ are as under:

  •     ‘Similar’ means resembling or similar; having the same or some of the same characteristics— (Webster’s Online Dictionary)

  •     ‘Similar’ means ‘having a marked resemblance of likeness; of a like nature of kind — (Oxford English Dictionary)

On the basis of the foregoing, it would appear that the word ‘similar’, does not mean identical but there should be resemblance between two services in order to constitute the services as similar services. Various factors would have to be considered in order to determine whether two services are similar or not.

In the context of Central Excise, the Supreme Court has observed with reference to ‘electrical appliances normally used in the household and similar appliances used in hotels’ etc., that “the statute does not contemplate that goods classed under the words of ‘similar description’ shall be in all respects the same. If it did, these words would be unnecessary. These were intended to embrance goods not identical with those goods.” [Nat Steel Equipment v. Collector, (1998) 34 ELT 8 (SC) quoted and followed in CCE v. Wood Craft Products Ltd., (1995) 77 ELT 23 (SC)]

Valuation on the basis of equivalent money value of consideration:

Rule 3(b) of the Valuation Rules provides that where the value cannot be determined in accordance with clause (a) [i.e., Rule 3(a) on basis of value of similar service], the service provider shall determine the equivalent money value of such consideration which shall, in no case be less than the cost of provision of such taxable service.

Thus, if the value of similar services cannot be ascertained, the ‘value’ will be ‘equivalent value of consideration’. Such ‘equivalent value’, to be determined by service provider himself, shall not be less that cost of provision of such service.

It is pertinent to note that Valuation Rules make no provision for method of calculation of ‘cost’ of the taxable services. No guidelines have been issued by CBEC prescribing methodology to be adopted for the purposes of valuation.

Implications in the context of redevelopment:

Under a redevelopment arrangement, flat/office is provided to an existing occupant free of cost, in pursuance of an agreement between a society and the builder/developer. Hence, immediate beneficiary of redevelopment is the flat/office occupant, whereas society would be a remote beneficiary of redevelopment in the existing sense that there would be enhancement of property value and increased/better facilities that would be available.

Whether or not there is a flow of consideration (monetary or otherwise) from a builder/developer to a society in terms of amended section 67 of the Act, is a highly complex and contentious issue for which there is no ready answer.

Assuming, there is flow of ‘consideration’ arising from the redevelopment arrangement between builders/developers to a society, the taxable value of service in terms of Valuation Rules would be determined as under:

    i) Option 1 — Amount equivalent to the gross amount charged by a builder/developer to any new buyer of flat/office for similar service provided in the ordinary course of trade and gross amount charged is the sole consideration.

This would have to be determined based on an examination of the facts of a given case duly supported by independent documentary evidences.

    ii) Option 2 — In case, value cannot be determined in accordance with Option 1 above, builder/developer would have to determine equivalent money value of such consideration, which shall not be less than the cost of provision of taxable service factoring mainly cost incurred for obtaining FSI, the en-tire cost of construction, rentals paid for the period during demolition and construction period, etc. This will differ depending on the facts of each case.

As yet, no methodology is prescribed by CBEC to determine equivalent monetary value of consideration in terms of the Valuation Rules. However, in this regard, recourse may be made to Guidelines issued by CBEC under Central Excise for computing cost of captive consumption liable to excise duty, on the basis of Cost Accounting Standard (CAS 4) issued by The Institute of Cost & Works Accountants of India. This basis has been approved by the Supreme Court in CCE v. Cadbury India Ltd., (2006) 200 ELT 353 (SC).

In case there is any liability to service tax on the builder/developer, it would appear that the same would be subject to various benefits available under the applicable exemption/abatement notifications granting full or partial exemption from payment of service tax.

Alternatively, benefits may also be available under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 subject to compliance of stipulated conditions.

Conclusion:
Redevelopment of properties is a very complex subject and issues relating to service tax under re-development are equally complex. Issues involved are likely to be litigated extensively in due course of time. Till the time, there is a reasonable level of clarity on the complex subject, it would be in the interest of concerned builders/developers to factor service tax while finalising redevelopment arrangements.

Refund of port services cannot be denied on the ground that the service provider was not authorised by port – It should be allowed provided service tax was paid to the service provider by the recipient. Refund of Goods Transport Agency (GTA) services should be allowed based on the debit notes issued by the service provider vide Rule 4A of the Service Tax R ules, 1994 and R ule 9(2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

fiogf49gjkf0d
9. 2012 (27) STR 158 (Tri.-Ahmd.) Gujarat Tea Processors & Packers Ltd. v. C. C. E., Ahmedabad-II

Refund of port services cannot be denied on the ground that the service provider was not authorised by port – It should be allowed provided service tax was paid to the service provider by the recipient.

Refund of Goods Transport Agency (GTA) services should be allowed based on the debit notes issued by the service provider vide Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 and Rule 9(2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.


Facts:

The appellant claimed refund of CENVAT Credit on port services and GTA services on exporting finished goods. The refund claim for port services was rejected on the ground that the service provider was not the authorised person of the port. The refund claim for GTA services was rejected on the ground that the CENVAT Credit was claimed on the basis of debit note and the original copies of debit note/invoice were not signed and as such, the appellant could not produce sufficient documentary proof to the satisfaction of the lower authorities.

Held:

The issue with respect to port services has already been decided in favour of the assessee by the Ahmedabad Tribunal in the following cases:

  • Dishman Pharma & Chemicals Ltd. 2011 (21) STR 246
  •  Ramdev Food Products Pvt. Ltd. 2010 (19) STR 833

With respect to refund of GTA services, the Tribunal observed that proviso to Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 specifically allowed any document containing requisite details from a GTA service provider. Further, Rule 9(2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules provided that the Adjudicating Authority could accept any document containing details as specified in the said Rule and the appellant provided a detailed statement showing the details of value of services, service tax payable and paid etc. and the same could be considered to be valid in the absence of the ledger. The self certified copies of documents cannot be a reason to reject the refund claim and the same is a curable defect and the matter was remanded to the original adjudicating authority.

levitra

Export of services-Phrase “used outside India” needs to be interpreted to mean that the benefit of the services should accrue outside India vide CBEC Circular no. 111/5/2009-ST dated 24.2.2009. Export of services-Merely not showing the commission separately in profit and loss account cannot be a ground to reject the claim of the assessee that the services are exported especially when other documentary evidences proving provision of services to foreign client and receipt of amount in foreign cur<

fiogf49gjkf0d
    8. 2012 (27) STR 155 (Tri.-Ahmd.) Manish Agarwal vs. Comm. Of Service Tax, Ahmedabad
    
Export of services-Phrase “used outside India” needs to be interpreted to mean that the benefit of the services should accrue outside India vide CBEC Circular no. 111/5/2009-ST dated 24.2.2009.

Export of services-Merely not showing the commission separately in profit and loss account cannot be a ground to reject the claim of the assessee that the services are exported especially when other documentary evidences proving provision of services to foreign client and receipt of amount in foreign currency were in place and not rebutted by the department.


Facts:

The department demanded service tax on differential amount as shown in service tax returns and profit and loss account. The appellant contended that the said amount pertained to export of services and there was no mandatory requirement to show export of services in service tax returns during the relevant period, therefore, the same was not reflected in the service tax returns. Further, the appellant mainly contended that commission was received from foreign clients in foreign currency and the documentary evidences in this respect, was provided to the department. However, the same was not challenged by the department. Further, service tax was demanded without showing any working. Also, non-mention of the foreign commission separately in the profit and loss account was not a valid ground for demand of service tax. The demand was however confirmed as there was no bifurcation of domestic and export commission.

Held:

The ground taken by the Commissioner (Appeals) that the commission was not shown separately in the profit and loss account, cannot be a valid ground to reject the services in view of documentary evidences proving that the commission was received from foreign clients in foreign currency. Further, the appellant had paid service tax on domestic commission which was submitted to the Commissioner (Appeals), therefore, there were no contradictory stands taken by the appellant. Vide Circular no. 111/5/2009-ST dated 24.2.2009, the foreign commission was not liable to service tax since the phrase “used outside India” was required to be interpreted to mean that the benefit of the service should accrue outside India including cases where all the activities pertaining to provision of service were performed in India. 7

levitra

Doctrine of unjust enrichment whether applies to refund of pre-deposit when the burden is not passed on to the customers.

fiogf49gjkf0d
7. 2012 (27) STR 140 (Tri.-Kolkata) Comm. Of C. Ex., Kolkata-VII v. G. D. Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.

Doctrine of unjust enrichment whether applies to refund of pre-deposit when the burden is not passed on to the customers.


Facts:

The respondent made a pre-deposit u/s. 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In view of favourable decision from the Commissioner (Appeals), the respondent filed refund claim for pre-deposit. The lower adjudicating authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) granted the refund. Therefore, the department filed the present appeal and contended that Mumbai Tribunal in case of Poona Rolling Mills vs. CCE, Pune – I 2009 (240) ELT 85 held that the doctrine of unjust enrichment is applicable in case of pre-deposits as well, and the said doctrine was not examined in the said case. However, the respondent argued that the said doctrine did not apply to the present case in view of non-passing of the burden of such pre-deposit to any other person.

 Held:

Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 dealing with doctrine of unjust enrichment is applicable to duties and not to pre-deposits. Since the burden of pre-deposit was passed on to others in the case of Poona Rolling Mills (Supra), the said case is distinguished from the present case. The doctrine of unjust enrichment does not apply to refund of pre-deposit when the same is not passed on to others.

levitra

2012-TIOL-1145-CESTAT-MUM – Royal Western India Turf Club Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai Royal Western Turf Club Ltd. charged fee from bookies, royalty income from other racing clubs for live telecast of races and royalty from caterers for providing infrastructural facility inside the club – None of the activities taxable under respective categories of “Intellectual Property Rights Services”, “Broadcasting Services” and “Business Support Services” – Total confusion in the minds of

fiogf49gjkf0d
6. 2012-TIOL-1145-CESTAT-MUM – Royal Western India Turf Club Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai

Royal Western Turf Club Ltd. charged fee from bookies, royalty income from other racing clubs for live telecast of races and royalty from caterers for providing infrastructural facility inside the club – None of the activities taxable under respective categories of “Intellectual Property Rights Services”, “Broadcasting Services” and “Business Support Services” – Total confusion in the minds of adjudicating authorities as to the nature of the tax and the measure of the tax – Impugned orders demanding Rs.6 crore set aside – Appeals allowed with consequential relief.


Facts:

The appellant, engaged in the activity of conducting horse racing, provided stalls to bookies during the race and they accept bets from the public in the premises of the appellant for which the appellant charged fixed and variable fees. They also conducted live telecast of races at other racing clubs in India for which they received royalty income viz. fixed and variable. They also received royalty from caterers who have been permitted to use the infrastructural facilities and operate within the premises of the club.

Four different SCN’s covering the period between 2002 and 2009 were issued classifying the above activities under different categories and the same activity under different categories in different SCNs.

The appellant relied on the case of Madras Race Club vs. CST [2009 (14) STR 646 (T)] and the CBEC Circulars viz. no.334/4/2006-TRU dated 28.02.2006 and no. 109/3/2009-ST dated 23.02.2009 to conclude that the receipts received from bookies were not taxable under the category of Business Support Services and relied on the judgement of the Hon. Bombay High Court in C.K.P. Mandal vs. CCE [2006 (3) STR 183 (Bom)] to conclude that receipts received from caterers also were not taxable under the category of Business Support Services.

For demand under the category of Intellectual Property Rights Services, relying on CBEC Circular No. 80/10/2004-ST dated 17.09.2004 stated that neither the SCN nor the O-I-O stated under which intellectual property would the said activity fall viz. patents, copyrights, trademarks or designs. For demand under “Broadcasting Services”, it was contended that the appellant had been charged under the said category by M/s Essel Shyam Communications for providing technical support for the telecast and hence, they cannot be treated as the provider as well as the receiver of the service at the same time and further stated that the activity of telecasting was brought under the tax net from 01.07.2010 vide clause 65(105)(zzzzr) – permitting commercial use or exploitation of any event.

Held:

After perusing the impugned orders, the Hon. Tribunal held that the orders clearly evidenced lack of clarity and understanding on the part of the department. The same activity viz. telecast of horse race, was classified under “Broadcasting Services” during one period and under “Intellectual Property Rights” during another period. Also, the consideration in respect of telecast of horse races and in respect of bookmakers have been classified under two different categories for the same period based on different modes of payment.

Intellectual Property Rights Service

Neither the SCN nor the impugned orders gave a clear proposal or finding as to what is the intellectual property right involved as clarified by the CBEC Circular dated 17.09.2004 and hence the demand was set aside. Broadcasting Services It was held that the said activity was undertaken by M/s. Essel Shyam Communications who appropriately discharged its liability and that the activity of the appellant was covered under the category of permitting commercial use or exploitation of any event w.e.f. 01-07-2010

 Business Support Services

As regards the activity to make available space to the caterers and bookmakers, it was held that it was nothing but hiring/leasing of immovable property as defined under 65(105)(zzzz) and not taxable as Business Support Service. It relied upon the definition of Business Support Service as defined under 65(104c) and the CBEC circular No.334/4/2006-TRU dated 28-02-2006. Since no merit was found, the entire demand under all the categories was set aside with consequential relief.

levitra

Bombay Flying Club registered as charitable institution – Offered training courses in Aircraft Maintenance Engineering, Pilot training & overhauling work of aircrafts – Appellant’s courses not considered of Vocational Training for notification 24/2004-ST – AAR ruling applied in view of identical facts and questions of law – Activity of pilot training taxable under “Commercial Coaching or Training Services” – activity of overhauling of aircrafts taxable under “Management, Maintenance & Repair Se<

fiogf49gjkf0d
5. 2012-TIOL-841-CESTAT-MUM – The Bombay Flying Club v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai –II

Bombay Flying Club registered as charitable institution – Offered training courses in Aircraft Maintenance Engineering, Pilot training & over-hauling work of aircrafts – Appellant’s courses not considered of Vocational Training for notification 24/2004-ST – AAR ruling applied in view of identical facts and questions of law – Activity of pilot training taxable under “Commercial Coaching or Training Services” – activity of overhauling of air-crafts taxable under “Management, Maintenance & Repair Services” – Pre-deposit ordered of 1.5 crores ordered.


Facts:

The appellant, engaged in providing training in Aircraft Maintenance Engineering, also undertook maintenance and repair of aircrafts owned by its members. The department contended that the above services were taxable as “Commercial Coaching or Training Services” and “Management, Maintenance and Repair Services”. Accordingly, four show cause notices were issued demanding an amount of Rs.2.56 crore. The appellant stated that it was under a bonafide belief that the activities undertaken by them were statutory functions and being a charitable organisation, there was no commercial aspect to its activities and consequently, they never recovered any service tax. It also contended that the demand for service tax under the category of “Management Maintenance or Repair” for the overhauling of aircrafts of its members was bad in law as the said service was not provided under a contract or agreement. The memorandum of the appellant company wherein they have undertaken to provide the said service to its members is not a contract or agreement. The department on its part relied on the CBEC circular, clarifying that the said activity was liable for service tax under the purview of “Commercial Training or Coaching” service and that exemption under Notification No.24/2004-ST was not available to such training programmes. The department also put their reliance on the AAR ruling in the case of CAE Flight Training (India) Ltd.2010 (18) STR 785 (AAR) which held that the activity undertaken was liable for service tax as “commercial training or coaching”.

Held:

Commercial Coaching or Training services: Referring to sections 65(26) and 65(27) of the Finance Act, 1994 relating to definitions of commercial training or coaching, the Tribunal held that the appellant was not covered under the exclusion clause. It also held that the appellant was not eligible for any duty exemption in terms of Notification No.24/2004–ST dated 10.09.2004 and Notification No.03/2010–ST dated 27.02.2010 (after amendment). Due weightage was placed on the CBE&C circular no.137/132/2010–ST dated 11th May, 2011 and on the AAR ruling. Thus, the activity of pilot training was considered as taxable. Management, Maintenance & Repair Services: Referring to the definition u/s. 65(64), the Tribunal stated that the statute does not stipulate any separate contract or agreement, written or otherwise, with the service recipient so as to bring the activity under the tax net. The fact that the activity was stated in the memorandum in the objects clause showed that there was understanding with the members. Thus, the activity of overhauling of aircrafts was also held as taxable. Bonafide belief was considered and Rs.1.71 crore being within normal period, pre-deposit of Rs.1.5 crore was ordered.

levitra

Clarifications regarding Annexures to be submitted by Developers

fiogf49gjkf0d
Trade Circular No.18T of 2012 dated 26-9-2012.

In extension of requirements of Trade Circular No.14T of 2012 dated 6-8-2012, the developer shall submit year wise annexure showing the working of his tax liability up to the period ending 31-10-2012 after uploading returns.

Format for the annexures given on website and it is to be sent as attachment to email builderscell@ gmail.com.

levitra

Extension of dates for Grant of Registration, ADM Relief and payment of taxes etc.

fiogf49gjkf0d
Circular No. 17T of 2012, dated 25-9-2012.

Extension of dates for Grant of Registration, ADM Relief and payment of taxes etc. as per Trade Circular No.14T of 2012 dated 6-8-2012.

Vide Trade Circular No.14T of 2012 dated 6-8-2012, the Commissioner has announced grant of administrative relief to builders and developers. If the builders and developers are not registered under the VAT Act, then they were required to apply for VAT TIN on or before 16-8-2012 which is extended to 15-10-2012. Further, they are also required to pay all taxes and upload all the returns from 20-6-2006 till date and apply for administrative relief on or before 31-8-2012 which is extended to 31-10-2012.

levitra

Taxability of Furnishing Cloth notified under entry 101 of Schedule C appended to MVAT Act, 2002

fiogf49gjkf0d
Circular No. VAT/AMD-2012/1C/ADM-8 dated 25-9-2012

Vide this Circular, the Commissioner has explained the implications of Notification issued to levy tax on Furnishing cloth.

levitra

Due date for filing ST-3 Return extended to 25th November, 2012

fiogf49gjkf0d
Order No.03/2012 dated 15-12-2012.

CBEC vide this Order has extended the due date for submission of the return in ST-3 for the period 1st April 2012 to 30th June 2012, from 25th October, 2012 to 25th November, 2012.

levitra

ST-3 Return for the period April to June, 2012

fiogf49gjkf0d
Circular no F. No. 137/22/2012-Service Tax Notification No. 47/2012–S.T. Since introduction of Negative List approach of Service Tax w.e.f. 1-7-2012, the classification and the payment of service tax under various categories of services were not required. The department has, vide this Circular, clarified that filing and verification of the data for the periods from April, 2012 to June, 2012 and July, 2012 to September, 2012 in the single return would be very complex for the industry as well as the department. The above Notification has been issued to amend the Service Tax Rules, 1994 so as to provide for the filing of data pertaining only to the period of April, 2012 to June, 2012 in the ST-3 return to be filed by 25th October, 2012.
levitra

(2011) 38 VST 124 (Mad.) Sunder India Limited and others v. Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Ezhilagam, Chennai and others.

fiogf49gjkf0d
Sales Tax — Interpretation of taxing statutes — Entries in Schedule — Clarification of Commissioner cannot have retrospective effect — Ambiguity in view of Department as to rate of tax applicable — Interpretation favouring dealer to be adopted.

Facts :
The petitioners were dealers in paper-based decorative laminated sheets, made of paper, and treated the same as ‘paper-based product’. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes issued a clarification dated 17th August 2005, that the products were ‘decorative laminates’ and taxable @ 16%. According to the petitioners the rate of tax applicable on such goods was 10%, thus they sought for review of aforesaid clarification. On review, the Commissioner issued a clarification dated 23rd March 2006 and stated that the paper based laminated decorative sheets are taxable @ 10%. The said clarification was issued after taking note of an earlier order of Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal. However, later on based upon the Supreme Court’s decision in a matter under Central Excise, wherein the impugned product was held as falling under a different tariff entry than that of paper-based product, the Commissioner again issued a clarification, on 30th May 2008, that the impugned product is correctly liable to tax @ 16%. Thus, tax was sought to be levied at such rate for past periods and notices were issued to reopen the completed assessments also. On writ petitions;

Held :

(1) That the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal delivered its decision on 12th April, 1996, which was based upon expert opinion received from the Joint Director of Industries regarding nature of product. The finding was accepted by the Department. The entry contained in the Schedule has not undergone any change. Thus, the Circular issued by the Commissioner, relying on the interpretation given by the Supreme Court in respect to Central Excise Tariff, could not be sustained. The Department was not justified in relying on the Circular for reopening assessments.

(2) That the clarification issued by the Commissioner could not be applied retrospectively.

(3) That since the Department was not firm in its view with regard to the percentage of tax, the benefit of doubt should be extended to the dealers.

(4) That the contention of the Department, that the writ petitions challenging the notices to reopen the assessments were premature in nature, could not be sustained. Similarly, the revised orders passed were also bad in law.

levitra

(2011) 38 VST 45 (Mad.) State of Tamil Nadu v. A.N.S. Guptha and Sons

fiogf49gjkf0d
Sales Tax Act — Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act — Sections 54, 54A, 55 — Assessing Officer is a quasi-judicial authority, refusal to allow the dealer to cross-examine witnesses is not proper.

Facts :
The respondent was a dealer under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. An inspection was made by the Enforcement Wing Officer on which day the dealer did not produce manufacturing-cumstock register in the prescribed form. However the dealer produced all his accounts at the time of assessment, wherein he claimed certain items of sale as exempt from tax. To verify the claim with reference to bought note purchases, summons were issued to various sellers, out of which some of the summons were returned unserved with the endorsement ‘no such address’ and on the basis of this the Assessing Authority treated the bought note purchases as bogus and, therefore, the sale of such articles as taxable. The dealer came forward to produce the persons to establish its case, but the Assessing Officer refused to give opportunity for cross-examination to the dealer stating that he could not conduct a Court of law. The assessment orders were passed disallowing the bought note purchases of items exempt to tax and also levied penalty. The first Appellate Authority as well as the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the dealer. On a revision petition by the State;

Held :
(1) That an opportunity should have been given to the dealer and the refusal by the Department vitiated the order of assessment. When finding of facts had categorically been recorded by both the Appellate Authorities in favour of the dealer, there was no reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. The question of law sought to be raised by the Department was purely question of facts.

(2) That the Assessing Authority could not simply take into consideration the report of Enforcement Wing and should have decided the matter on the merits, independently unbiased and unaffected by any other subsequent factors. The Assessing Officer had basically committed a mistake in stating that he could not conduct a Court of law. Such an attitude of the Assessing Authority in totally rejecting the contentions of the dealer without applying the basic principles of law was not legal and bad in law.

levitra

(2011) 21 STR 605 (Tri.-Mumbai) — Punjab State C & W.C. Ltd. v. Commissioner of S.T., Mumbai.

fiogf49gjkf0d
Return filed in 2003 and based on scrutiny of return, service tax paid in 2004 but show-cause notice issued in 2006 invoking extended period — Ground of limitation raised but the same not considered by Commissioner (Appeals) — Impugned order set aside — Commissioner (Appeals) to first decide limitation and if appellant succeeds, merit not to be considered — Merits to be considered if appellant failed in limitation.

Facts:
The appellants filed their service tax return for the period April 2003 to September 2003 on 24- 10-2003.
A query received from the Department on 16-1-2004 to explain amount paid by them in the return, was explained by appellants vide letter dated 4-2-2004 and paid the service tax on 22-3-2004. On 4-10-2006, the appellants were issued show-cause notice for payment of service tax for the period 14- 5-2003 to 28-5-2003.

Held:
The Tribunal observed that the duty for the disputed period was paid along with interest on 22-3-2004 and show-cause notice was issued on 4-10-2006 which was beyond the statutory period of one year. The appellants took this ground before the Commissioner (Appeals) but it was not considered. Hence the impugned order was set aside and matter was sent to the Commissioner (Appeals) first to decide the limitation issue, if appellants succeeded on limitation issue, merits were not required to be considered. If limitation issue failed, then the case was to be decided on the basis of merits.

levitra

(2011) 21 STR 621 (Tri.-Bang.) — Tata Motors Insurance Services Ltd. v. Commissioner of S.T., Bangalore.

fiogf49gjkf0d
Personal hearing fixed on 25-1-2007 or 29-1-2007 or 31-1-2007 — Impugned order passed ex parte without hearing Noticee — Appellant stated that adjournment sought on 31-1-2007 by sending fax — Adjournment request rejected — Order passed on 13-2-2007 — Order set aside — Matter remanded for fresh decision.

Facts:
A company registered under the category ‘Authorised Service Station’, received commission from finance companies, commission from insurance companies and incentives from its principal for achievement of targets. The appellant-company was engaged in the said activities without intimating the Department about the same and without following statutory formalities including payment of tax, for the period July 2003 to September 2005. The appellant had paid Rs.6,84,254 towards the demand confirmed against them in the year 2005. The Commissioner sent showcause notice and fixed personal hearing at 1600 hrs. on either of three alternate dates viz. 25th January or 29th January or 31st January. The appellant sought adjournment of hearing on 31-1-2007.

The adjournment was rejected and ex parte order was passed.

Held:
The Tribunal observed that giving the choice of three dates is considered as one date for hearing and the appellants could appear before the Commissioner on any one of the dates. Statutorily, the appellants were entitled to request for three adjournments. The appellants sought adjournment of hearing fixed on the last date indicated in the notice which cannot be considered as adjournment of earlier two dates. Denial of personal hearing was violation of its statutory right and also violation of principles of natural justice. Hence the order of the Commissioner was vacated and the case was remanded to the Commissioner.

levitra

(2011) 21 STR 626 (Tri.-Bang.) — Kerala State Beverages (Mfg. & Mktg.) Corp. v. CCEx., Trivandrum.

fiogf49gjkf0d
Appellants, a State Government undertaking, engaged in procuring and selling liquor — Service tax demanded on charges collected for warehousing liquor in appellant premises — Revenue not rebutting service tax demanded on sale consideration collected from distillers — Prima facie case made out by showing that liquor purchased from distilleries — Pre-deposit waived — Recovery stayed.

Facts:
The appellant-corporation, an undertaking of the Kerala State Government, had the monopoly of procuring foreign liquor (Indian Made) manufactured in various private distilleries during the period of dispute. The appellant sold these products either through their own outlets or through independent dealers and paid sales tax thereon. Treating as commission income or revenue, service tax was demanded, whereas the appellant contended it as the case of sale and the income earned therefrom as trading profit. The Department was not able to rebut the claim of the appellants that service tax was demanded on the sale consideration.

Held:
The Tribunal observed that it was a prima facie case of purchasing liquor from the distilleries and where there is sale of goods, there can be no levy of service tax on its value. Hence, prima facie, no service tax was leviable on the amount collected. Waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery was granted.

levitra

(2011) 21 STR 631 (Tri.-Ahmd.) — Jay Dwarkadish Engg. & Electricals Contractor v. CCex., Rajkot.

fiogf49gjkf0d
Delay in payment of service tax — Tax paid with interest subsequently — Department informed of payment through ST-3 return — Show-cause notice was issued for levy of penalty by the Department — Penalty cancelled.

Facts:
The appellants were engaged in construction service. During the period from April 2007 to September 2007, there was delay of 20 to 47 days in making the payment of service tax. Delayed payment was made with interest. Penalty was imposed on the appellant u/s. 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. Instead of appearing the appellants filed the written representation stating the payment of tax along with interest was made and reliance on the Tribunal decision, in U.B. Engineering Ltd. v. Commissioner, 2010 (20) STR 818 (Tribunal), to support their contention that where an assessee pays service tax with interest and informs the Central Excise Officer, the Central Excise Officer shall not issue a show-cause notice.

Held:
The Tribunal observed that appellants paid the service tax with interest and the Department was informed of the same through ST-3, the provisions of section 73(3) of the Finance Act is applicable and in such cases no show-cause notice need to be issued. Allowing the appeal, the penalty u/s. 76 was held unsustainable.

levitra

(2011) 21 STR 603 (Tri.-Chennai) — Ramesh Enterprises v. CCE, Tirunelveli.

fiogf49gjkf0d
Original authority has passed order-in-original without offering opportunity of personal hearing — CCE (Appeals) remanded for fresh adjudication to adjudicating authority.

Facts:
Original authority passed the order-in-original without offering personal hearing opportunity to the assessee. After observing the principle of natural justice, the Commissioner (Appeals) annulled the order and directed the lower authority to adjudicate afresh. The Department filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that the Commissioner (Appeals) had no power to remand.

Held:
Section 35A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 has not been made applicable to service tax matters u/s. 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. Section 85(4) does not preclude the Commissioner (Appeals) from passing a remand order if he thinks fit. Hence held that since the principle of natural justice was not followed and considering the amount of demand, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) remanding the case was upheld and appeal of the Department was rejected.

Comment:
The above two judgments are contradictory.

levitra

(2011) 21 STR 644 (Tri.-Mumbai) — Positive Packaging Industries Ltd. v. CCEx., Raigad.

fiogf49gjkf0d
The assessee filed refund claim under Notification No. 41/2007-S.T. in relation to CHA service and commission agent service — Rejection of claim held as not correct in impugned order while holding claim to be sanctioned after verification — CCE (Appeals) not having power to remand — Impugned order not sustainable — Matter remanded to CCE (Appeals) for fresh decision.

Facts:
The original authority rejected the refund claim of the assessee in relation to CHA as well as commission agency. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that rejection of refund claim in relation to CHA and commission agent was not correct and the claim was required to be sanctioned after necessary verification and accordingly remanded the case back. The Revenue was in appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not have power to remand.

Held:
It was observed that the law on the point of jurisdiction of the Commissioner (Appeals) on the subject of remand is well settled and it has been held that the Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to remand the matter and he has to decide the matter himself in case of any infirmity in the order passed by the adjudicating authority. It was held that the Commissioner (Appeals) having found that the findings on two issues by original authority were not sustainable, it was necessary for the Commissioner (Appeals) to analyse the materials on record and to arrive at appropriate finding on the claim of the assessee and not to leave the matter for verification by the adjudicating authority. Hence the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) was set aside and matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals).

levitra

(2011) 21 STR 663 (Tri.-Mumbai) — Rajdeep Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. v. CCEx., Aurangabad.

fiogf49gjkf0d
The assessee paid excess service tax in October 2007 — Excess service tax was adjusted against service tax liability of January 2008 and February 2008 — Intimation about adjustment given after 15 days with jurisdictional Superintendent — There is no short payment.

Facts:
The assessee paid excess service tax in the month of October 2007 of Rs.1,00,924. Such excess was adjusted by the assessee against payables for the month of January 2008 and February 2008. Intimation for adjustment of excess payment was filed after 15 days. The Department issued show-cause notice to the assessee for payment of service tax of Rs.1,00,924 for the period January 2008 to February 2008, along with interest and penalty. Lower adjudicating authority confirmed the demand, however the Commissioner (Appeals) dropped the same.

Held:
The Tribunal observed that there was no dispute regarding excess payment of service tax by the assessee in October 2007 and eligibility of the assessee for refund of such excess payment. Also the assessee has intimated, to Range Superintendent, about the adjustment of excess payment but after 15 days and it was only a technical default and there is no short payment of service tax. Upholding the order, the appeal by the Revenue was rejected.

levitra

(2011) 21 STR 668 (Tri.-Mumbai) — CBAY Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of CCEx, Mumbai

fiogf49gjkf0d
Appellants claimed refund of service tax on services used in export of goods under Notification No. 41/2007-S.T. — Exemption/refund denied on the ground that appellants not registered under Business Auxiliary service — Denial of refund not sustainable.

Facts:
The appellants utilised certain services for export of goods and claimed refund of the service tax on such services under Notification No. 41/2007 S.T. The refund claim was denied on the ground that the appellants were not registered under the category of ‘Business Auxiliary Service’.

Held:
CBEC has issued clarification, in the circular dated 12-3-2009, in regards to the above-mentioned issue stating that Notification No. 41/2007-S.T. provides exemption by way of refund for specified services used for export of goods. Granting refund to exporters, on taxable services that he receives and uses for export do not require verification of registration certificate of the supplier of service. Therefore, refund should be granted in such cases. The procedural violations by the service provider needs to be dealt separately. Accordingly, the denial of refund claim on the ground that the appellants were not registered under the ‘Business Auxiliary Service’ was not sustainable and the appeal was allowed.

levitra

(2011) 21 STR 695 (Tri.-Mumbai) — Multi Organics Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur.

fiogf49gjkf0d
Job worker paid service tax on the services rendered to the principal manufacturer — Processed goods used for manufacture of final product and duty paid on finished goods — CENVAT credit allowed by preferring later decision of the two contradictory decisions.

Facts:
The assessee appealed against the denial of CENVAT credit of the service tax paid by their job worker in the common order of the Commissioner (Appeals). However, the said order held the demand to be time-barred and also refrained from imposing penalty u/s. 11AC. This was challenged in the Revenue’s appeal.

Held:
The Tribunal observed that the Department relied on Bombay Dyeing & manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner, [2001 (135) ELT 1392 (Tribunal)] which is contradictory to the decision relied on by the appellants in SPIC (HCD) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai, [2006 (201) ELT 386 (Tri- Chennai)] for granting CENVAT credit for the service tax paid by the job worker. According to one of the well-established tenets of judicial discipline, where there are contradictory decisions of two Coordinate Benches, the later one would prevail. Therefore the view taken in the SPIC (HCD) Ltd. would be appropriate precedent. The assessee’s appeal for CENVAT credit of service tax paid by job worker to be allowed. Consequently, the Revenue’s appeal was dismissed.

levitra

2011) 21 STR 589 (Tri.-Del.) — CCEx., Ludhiana v. Mayfair Resorts.

fiogf49gjkf0d
Amount declared as income during the course of survey u/s. 133 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 not to be considered as revenue attributable to provision of service in absence of sufficient evidence.

Facts:
The Department was of the view that the amount declared during the course of survey u/s. 133 of Income-tax Act should be treated as receipt for rendition of service. The assessee produced a letter submitted to the income-tax authority which exhibited the date of findings. The letter nowhere stated that the amount was attributable to consideration from provision of service. The Department contended that the disclosure was subject matter of A.Y. 2005-2006 and the same should be considered as consideration for provision of service. The said amount was reflected in the balance sheet as well.

Held:
The matter was in respect of financial year 2004- 2005. The balance sheet did not disclose that the amount was attributable to provision of services. No evidence was produced by the Department. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

levitra

Appellant, a service receiver, liable to tax under reverse charge mechanism, did not pay service tax, but paid the same when the omission was pointed out — Appellant under the impression that there was no need to pay interest — No reply to the letter of appellant regarding payment of service tax — Department initiated proceed-ings by issuing the show-cause notice and even though the appellant paid interest as soon as the show-cause notice was issued, penalties were imposed — Held, for penalty imposed for sup-pressing value of service tax, there was no need for the appellant to resort to suppression since whatever tax was to be paid they were eligible for CENVAT credit — By delaying the payment of service tax, the appellant had to pay interest on the amount which was not available as CENVAT credit — Penalty not invokable.

(2012) 25 STR 596 (Tri-Ahmd.) — Shree
Rama Multi-Tech Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Ahmedabad.

Appellant, a service receiver, liable to tax under reverse charge mechanism, did not pay service tax, but paid the same when the omission was pointed out — Appellant under the impression that there was no need to pay interest — No reply to the letter of appellant regarding payment of service tax — Department initiated proceed-ings by issuing the show-cause notice and even though the appellant paid interest as soon as the show-cause notice was issued, penalties were imposed — Held, for penalty imposed for sup-pressing value of service tax, there was no need for the appellant to resort to suppression since whatever tax was to be paid they were eligible for CENVAT credit — By delaying the payment of service tax, the appellant had to pay interest on the amount which was not available as CENVAT credit — Penalty not invokable.

Facts:

The appellant availed services of Machine Maintenance & Repair from Germany and paid the required amount to the service provider in foreign currency. The appellant did not pay service tax since the service provider did not have their office in India. They paid service tax when the omission was pointed out. The mistake occurred because the payment of service received was to be made by the head office and services were received in factory. The appellant was under the impression that they were not required to pay interest and after payment of service tax they had intimated the department about the same. No reply to this letter was received and the Department initiated proceedings by issuing the show-cause notice and even though the appellant paid the interest as soon as the show-cause notice was issued, penalties were imposed.

Held:

After receiving the intimation from the appellant, the Central Excise Officer should determine the interest payable and communicate to the appellant and if the appellant did not pay the same, they had a period of one year to issue the show-cause notice. Without intimating the appellant that he is liable to pay interest, show cause notice was issued. At least after issuance of show-cause notice when the appellant paid the amount of interest, further proceedings should have been dropped. In respect of penalty, it was held that there was no need for the appellant to resort to suppression since whatever tax was to be paid they were eligible for CENVAT credit and by delaying the payment of service tax, the appellant had to pay interest on the amount which was not available as CENVAT credit; Hence the Tribunal found no justification to sustain penalty.

Notifications w.r.t. Schedule C:

fiogf49gjkf0d
No. 1512/C.R.91 (1)/Taxation-1, dated 17-8-2012 No. 1512/C.R.91 (2)/Taxation-1, dated 17-8-2012 No. 1512/C.R.91 (3)/Taxation-1, dated 17-8-2012 No. 1512/C.R.91 (4)/Taxation-1, dated 17-8-2012

First Notification exempts sale of furnishing fabrics notified under schedule entry C-101 when sold other than last point of sale within the state. Second Notification adds; furnishing fabrics notified under Schedule Entry C-101, in exclusions from sales turnover under composition scheme for retailers in the notification issued on 1-06-2005 Vat 1505/C.R.105/ Taction-1 for Composition Scheme. Third Notification specifies varieties of furnishing fabrics under Schedule Entry No.C-101 (a). Fourth Notification amends list of varieties of sugar, tobacco textiles and textile articles by Schedule Entry C-101 issued in Notification 1505/C.R. 120/Taxtion 1, Dated 1-6-2005. All the notifications are effective from 1-9-2012.

levitra

Tax on vocational education/training courses

fiogf49gjkf0d
Circular No. 164/15/2012-ST dated August 28, 2012

CBEC- TRU has issued this Circular clarifying certain issues in relation to levy of service tax on certain vocational education/training/skill development courses (VEC). Accordingly, VEC offered by the Central Government or State Government or local authority themselves ,is covered in the Negative List under Section 66D and hence, service tax is not leviable. When the VEC is offered by an institution, as an independent entity in the form of society or any other similar body, service tax treatment is determinable by the application of either sub-clause (ii) or (iii) of clause (l) of section 66D. Services provided by way of education as a part of a curriculum for obtaining a qualification recognised by any law for the time being in force, are not chargeable to service tax. Services provided by way of education as a part of an approved vocational education course are not chargeable to service tax.

levitra

Central sales Tax- State Government–Power to Grant Exemption total/partial – U/s. 8(5) – Not Affected Even After Amendment From 11.5.2002-To Grant Exemption From Payment of Tax – On sales Not Supported by Form C/D – Section 8(5) of The Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.

fiogf49gjkf0d

2. M/S. Prism Cement Limited and Another v.
State of Maharashtra and Others , Writ Petition No. 6475 of 2009 decided
on 30.8.2012 by The Bombay High Court.


Central sales Tax- State
Government–Power to Grant Exemption total/partial – U/s. 8(5) – Not
Affected Even After Amendment From 11.5.2002-To Grant Exemption From
Payment of Tax – On sales Not Supported by Form C/D – Section 8(5) of
The Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.

Facts

The
dealer filed a writ petition against three trade circulars issued by the
Commissioner of Sales Tax, dated 27.5.2002, 20.7.2002 and 8.2.2007 and
also notices issued by the commissioner for revising the assessment
before the Bombay High Court. By the above mentioned circulars, the
Commissioner had informed that u/s. 8(5) of the CST Act, amended by
Finance Act, 2002 from 11.5.2002, State Government is empowered to grant
exemption only in respect of inter-State sales to the registered
dealers or to the Government covered by section 8(1) of the Act, unless
such sales are supported by declaration in form C or D respectively, as
provided in section 8(4) of the act. It was further informed that as a
result of the above amendment, any notification issued u/s. 8(5) of the
act prior to 11.5.2002, which is contrary to the amended section 8(5)
shall be amended accordingly. In other words according to Commissioner,
unless C or D forms are produced, benefit of exemption or concessional
rate of tax, under any notification issued prior to 11.5.2002, cannot be
granted in respect of any inter-state sales effected after 11.5.2002.

Based
on the above, the department initiated proceedings against the dealer
to recover tax on inter- state sales not supported by either form C or
D, which was claimed by the dealer as exempt from payment of tax under
notification issued by the State prior to 11.5.2002.The dealer filed
writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging the
abovementioned three trade circulars issued by the Commissioner of sales
tax and other notices issued by the assessing authority.

The
question to be considered by the High Court was, whether section 8(5) of
the act as amended by the Finance Act, 2002 restricts the powers of
State Government to grant exemption either wholly or partially only in
respect of sales of goods to registered dealer/Government subject to
furnishing declaration in form C or D as the case may be?

If the
answer is yes, then whether amended section 8(5) affects the vested
right of the eligible unit to claim the exemption from payment of tax
under package scheme of incentives 1993, so far it relates to
inter-State sales of goods to dealers other than registered
dealers/Government?

Held

The High Court rejected
the self-destructive argument of the department that section 8(5) of the
Act after the amendment, restricts the power of State Government to
grant total/partial exemption in respect of inter-State sales covered by
section 8(1) only. Even after the amendment to section 8(5) of the act,
the power of state Government to grant total/partial exemption in
respect of inter-state sales covered by section 8(2) of the act is not
affected. Since the High Court decided first question in favour of the
dealer, second question was not answered by the High Court.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed and
set aside the impugned trade circulars issued by the Commissioner of
sales tax and other notices issued by the Department.

levitra

Valuer services are not consulting engineer services and therefore, not leviable to service tax

fiogf49gjkf0d
11. 2012 (27) STR 113 (Guj.) Institution of Valuers v. Union of India

Valuer services are not consulting engineer services and therefore, not leviable to service tax


Facts:

The petitioner received a clarification from the Commissioner of Central Excise on 27.03.1998 which stated that valuers of immovable property (other than agricultural lands, plantations, forests, mines and quarries) and valuers of plant and machinery are consulting engineer services leviable to service tax. The petitioner’s contentions were as under: Valuation broadly means assessing worth of any tangible or intangible assets. Following principles are applied for the purpose of valuation:

  •  Supply and demand
  •  Competition
  •  Substitution
  •  Assessment of circumstances having a direct or indirect nexus on the degree of utility and productivity of an asset
  •  Assessment of market forces
  •  Relative purchasing power of money
  •  Technological advancement or changes etc.

There is no legislation to regulate the profession of valuation. However, under Wealth Tax Act, 1957, the valuation can be carried out by a person registered with the Central Government u/s. 34AB of the said Act read with Rule 8A of the Wealth Tax Rules, 1957. One such person is defined to be a graduate in civil engineering and therefore, the respondent levied service tax on valuer services. However, valuation is not recognised as a discipline of engineering and the services can be provided by a number of professionals. The very fact that persons having other qualifications can also render valuer services is sufficient to conclude that valuation is not a discipline of engineering. Valuation requires knowledge of law, economics, accountancy, town planning, environmental science etc. Graduate in any stream is eligible for admission to the said course. Valuation is not a discipline of engineering and therefore, the services cannot be leviable to service tax under “consulting engineer services” even if the services are rendered by an engineer. The services are not in the nature of advice, consultancy or technical assistance in common parlance and therefore, when valuer services are provided by a consulting engineer, it is an unreasonable restriction on the fundamental right of the petitioner to carry on their profession and therefore, the levy is unconstitutional.

According to the respondent, provisions of Rule 8A of the Wealth Tax Rules, 1957 suggests that a graduate in civil engineering could become a registered valuer and the services provided by a valuer of immovable property or plant and machinery is a highly technical job. Further, prospectus of a university states that the course is imparted by the faculty of engineering and technology. The course content is mostly in the field of engineering. Reliance is placed on the judgment in case of V. Shanmughavel vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai – II 2001 (131) ELT 14 (Mad) wherein it was observed that vide Wealth Tax Laws, the person should hold a degree of engineering and should be a high standard engineer. Further, the services are in the nature of advise, consultancy or technical assistance and therefore, are liable to service tax as “consulting engineer’s services”. Therefore, when an engineer becomes a registered valuer of immovable property or plant and machinery, he is rendering consulting engineer’s services.

Held:

Vide Rules 8A of the Wealth Tax Rules, 1957, the qualifications prescribed for each category of valuers are different. The provisions with respect to valuation of immovable property and plant and machinery, allow an engineer to be a registered valuer. However, being an engineer is not a condition precedent for being eligible to be a registered valuer. The syllabus of valuer contains general subjects and subjects pertaining to engineering are limited. Valuation services rendered by a person, not being an engineer, is not consulting engineer’s services. Further, valuation services rendered by an engineer is also not leviable to service tax under “consulting engineer’s services” since there is no advise, consultancy or technical assistance involved in the said activity and it is not in relation to any discipline of engineering. Services rendered by the petitioner as valuer is not leviable to service tax as “consulting engineer’s services”.

levitra

Appointed date as approved by High Courts has to be considered the date of amalgamation and therefore, the services provided by the respondent in subsequent period should be considered to be services to self-service tax paid thereon, therefore, is eligible for refund.

fiogf49gjkf0d
10. 2012 (27) STR 145 (Tri.-Del.) Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi-I vs. ITC Hotels Ltd.

Appointed date as approved by High Courts has to be considered the date of amalgamation and therefore, the services provided by the respondent in subsequent period should be considered to be services to self-service tax paid thereon, therefore, is eligible for refund.


Facts:

The respondent and M/s. Ansal Hotels Ltd. were subsidiary of M/s. ITC Ltd. However, both these subsidiaries were amalgamated into the holding Company. The Hon. Delhi and Kolkata High Courts sanctioned the scheme in September 2004 w.e.f. 01.04.2004. Therefore, the respondent filed a refund claim for service tax paid for services rendered by them to the holding company during the period from April 2004 to September 2004, considering the services provided to self in view of the orders of High Courts. The original adjudicating rejected the refund claim considering the effective date as the date on which all the orders, sanctions, approvals, consents, conditions, matters or filings were obtained/ filed. The respondent had filed application with the Registrar of Companies on 23.03.2005, therefore, effective date of amalgamation was considered to be 23.03.2005. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that: The date provided in the scheme of amalgamation was to be considered to be the effective date as held by the Hon. Apex Court in case of M/s. Marshall Sons & Co. (India) Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officers 1997 (223) ITR 0809 SC and all the entities to be considered as one entity w.e.f. 01.04.2004 and consequently, services provided between the entities should be considered as services to self, not leviable to service tax relying upon following decisions:

  •  Precot Mills Ltd. vs. C. C. E., Tirupati 2006 TIOL 818 CESTAT-Bang.
  •  Kwality Zipper Ltd. vs. C. C. E., Kanpur 2002 (145) ELT 296 (Tri.-Del)

 The matter was remanded back to the original adjudicating authority to verify service tax involved in the matter and that the burden of the same was not passed on to others. The department on the other hand contended that as per the scheme of amalgamation, the employees of the transferor company were transferred to the transferee company w.e.f. 23.03.2005. Therefore, the separate identity of the service provider and service receiver remained intact till 23.03.2005 and the scheme further specified that any transactions or proceedings already concluded on or before the effective date should not be affected by the scheme of amalgamation. As per the decision in case of M/s. Wallace Flour Mills Co. Ltd. vs. Collector of Central Excise 1989 (44) ELT 598 (SC), the excise duty had to be determined at the rate prevalent on the date of removal, therefore, the taxable event being provision of service, contrary order cannot be passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).

Held:

In case of M/s. Marshall Sons & Co. (India) Ltd. (Supra), the Hon. Apex Court had held that the date of amalgamation as presented in the scheme, has to be considered to be the transfer date and not the date of the order sanctioning the scheme. The law declared by the Hon. Supreme Court was binding on all the Courts as per Article 141 of the Constitution of India and therefore, the ratio laid down in the Income Tax Act can be made applicable to Service Tax Laws in view of peculiar facts of the case. The Hon. Tribunal’s decision in case of Technocraft Industries (I) Ltd. (Supra) supported the respondent’s case that effective date needed to be preferred over the approval date. Wallace Flour Mills (Supra), was not applicable as it did not deal with the effective date of amalgamation and, accordingly, department’s appeal was rejected.

levitra

(2011) 21 STR 504 (Tri.-Del.) — Tangence Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. CCEx., Noida

fiogf49gjkf0d
Rebate on export of services allowed for house-keeping services and denied for group insurance.

Facts:
The assessee was denied rebate claim on export of services on the ground that services of group insurance, health policy, medical policy and housekeeping services are not ‘input services’.

The assessee claimed that the term ‘input service’ is very wide and covers all services connected with the business activities. The appellants relied on the Madras Tribunal’s judgment in the case of Sundaram Fasteners Ltd. v. CCE, Chennai, (2010 TIOL 1342) and Tribunal’s decision in the case of CCE, Raipur v. Raipur Rotocast Ltd., (2010 (18) STR 466) for claiming CENVAT credit of service tax paid on group insurance. Moreover, they contended that in accordance with CAS-IV, expenses forming part of cost of providing services, should be considered as eligible ‘input service’.

The Department contended as under:

(i) Evidence was not shown to the effect that the house-keeping services were activities relating to business.

(ii) Group insurance, health policy, personal accident policy, etc. were not required to be provided mandatorily by the appellants and the same were provided as a welfare measure.

(iii) Drawing analogy from CAS-IV is not relevant as CAS-IV deals with valuation of captively consumed goods in manufacturing sector.

Held:
(i) CENVAT credit was allowed on procurement of house-keeping services as these were clearly necessary for rendition of service.

(ii) CENVAT credit on group insurance, health policy, etc. though forms part of cost of services rendered, the same could not be treated as ‘input service’ automatically. Moreover, since the group insurance was a welfare measure in the present case, the same could not be considered as integrally connected with the provision of service and therefore, was held to be ineligible.

levitra

(2011) 21 STR 503 (Tri.-Chennai) — Nagappa Motors v. CCEx., Madurai.

fiogf49gjkf0d
For the periods prior to 10th May, 2008, excess amount collected representing excise duty cannot be demanded from manufacturer u/s. 11D of the Central Excise Act.

Facts:
The assessee provided services under ‘authorised service station’ to various customers of Hero Honda Motors Ltd. The service tax was collected from Hero Honda Motors Ltd. and only 50% of the amount collected was deposited into the Government Treasury. Section 11D of the Central Excise Act was invoked for recovery of amount collected from the manufacturer along with interest and penalty.

Held:
During the period under consideration, section 11D was applicable when the amount was collected from buyers. Since Hero Honda Motors Ltd. was manufacturer and not the buyer of the goods, the appellants were not liable to pay such amount collected. Since amount need not be deposited, interest and penalty was also not leviable.

Comment:
Section 11D was amended through the Finance Act, 2008 and Ss. (1A) has been inserted for plugging such loop-hole in the Central Excise law and therefore, now excess amount received from any person as excise duty needs to be deposited into the Government Treasury.

levitra

(2011) 21 STR 500 (Guj.) — CCEx. v. Steel Cast Ltd.

fiogf49gjkf0d
Adjudication order not containing specific finding on suppression — Question of facts — Already answered by Tribunal — Question of law does not arise — Appeal dismissed.

Facts:
The assessee applied for registration under the category of ‘management consultancy services’. However, the adjudicating authority rejected the application and issued a show-cause notice invoking extended period of limitation. Adjudicating order did not record any specific finding as regards suppression of facts and value thereof. The respondents appealed before the Commissioner (Appeals) and contended that the revenue was reflected in the balance sheet and therefore, there was no suppression of facts. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) did not deal with the issue.

On appeal, the Tribunal held that though the services fall under ‘management consultancy services’, the extended period of limitation is not justified in view of bona fide interpretation of law, entertaining belief and due to confusion prevailing during the period under consideration.

Held:
The matter in relation to ‘suppression of facts with intent to evade tax’ was a question of facts which was already answered by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee. Moreover, the Revenue did not put any contrary arguments to findings of Tribunal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

levitra

(2011) 31 STT-51 (Delhi) — Pearey Lal Bhawan Association v. Satya Developers (P) Ltd.

fiogf49gjkf0d
Service tax levy being an indirect tax on services, necessarily user of the service has to bear it by including the amount of tax in cost of service —Even if there is no explicit term in the contract — Sufficient internal indication in the Act present to indicate that the levy is indirect tax — Can be collected from the user — In this case lessee.

Facts:
The society, the owner of a building on leasehold land entered into lease deed with the lessee in October 2006 for the premises on the ground floor and also entered into agreement for the maintenance of common services and facilities of the said premises. Service tax was levied from 1-6-2007 on renting of immovable property for business purposes. The narrow issue in the dispute relates to whether service tax is to be borne by the lessee, the levy being an indirect tax which is required to be deposited after collecting from the user of the service. According to the plaintiff-society, by virtue of section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with sections 12A and 12B of the Central Excise Act, the levy is to be borne by the user of the premises or services, whereas according to the lessee-defendant, the contract between the parties provided that the lessee would pay all taxes, charges, ground rent, house tax, easements and other outgoings imposed by the local authority, etc.

Held:
(i) The Court observed that the parties while entering into contract did not visualise that the tax would be levied on lease or rent of immovable property and there was no dispute that the tax was levied after the agreement was entered into. Referring to the Supreme Court in All India Federation of Tax Practitioners v. UOI, (2007) 10 STT 166 dealing with the nature of service tax liability the Court observed that the Apex Court had held that excise duty and customs are consumption-specific duties which do not constitute a charge on the business but on the client. Similarly, the Court also observed that in All India Tax Payers Welfare Association’s case (2008) 5 STT 136 (Mad.), it was observed that according to section 65 of the Finance Act, the provider of service only being an assessee is to collect service tax from the users of service as contemplated under the sections.

(ii) The Court further observed that sections 12A and 12B of the Central Excise Act were made applicable to service tax law vide section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 to prescribe that the provider of service has the obligation to indicate the quantum of tax and that there is a presumption that incidence of duty is passed on to the buyer. Referring to section 64A of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, the Court observed that the said section visualises and provides for situations where levies of tax are imposed after the contract is entered into.

(iii) In view of this, unless a different intention appears from the contract, in case of imposition or increase of tax subsequent to drawing a contract, the parties shall be entitled to be paid such tax or increase. In the instant case, even in the absence of explicit provision to enable lessor to receive the service tax component, there is sufficient internal indication in the Act through section 83 read with sections 12A and 12B of the Central Excise Act that the levy is an indirect tax cap-able of being collected from the user, the lessee in this case. Thus, the plaintiff was entitled to the amounts claimed from the lessee.

levitra

Periodicity for ‘I’ form under CST Act, 1956

fiogf49gjkf0d
Under the CST Act there are various declaration forms. The forms are required to be furnished as per given periodicity. As per Rule 12(1) and Rule 12(9)(b) of the CST (Registration & Turnover) Rules, 1957, the C/E1/EII forms can be on quarterly basis. In other words, the forms can be for individual transaction or can be for all transactions in one quarter. As per Rule 12(5) of the CST (R & T) Rules, 1957, ‘F’ Forms can be on monthly basis. However, there is some ambiguity about periodicity of ‘I’ forms.

Few aspects of periodicity of ‘I’ forms are discussed below:

This form is issued by Special Economic Zone Unit to its supplier when the transaction is inter-State purchase from such supplier. The sales against ‘I’ forms are fully exempt from levy of CST in the hands of suppliers. ‘I’ form is issued as per section 8(8) of the CST Act, 1956. The said section reads as under:

“(8) The provisions of Ss. (6) and (7) shall not apply to any sale of goods made in the course of inter-State trade or commerce unless the dealer selling such goods furnishes to the authority referred to in Ss. (6), a declaration in the prescribed manner on the prescribed form obtained from the authority referred to in Ss. (5), duly filled in and signed by the registered dealer to whom such goods are sold.

Explanation — For the purpose of Ss. (6), the expression ‘special economic zone’ has the meaning assigned to it in clause (iii) to Explanation 2 to the proviso to section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944.”

In light of the above provision, the Central Government has prescribed Rule 12(11) in the CST (Registration & Turnover) Rules, 1957. The said Rule is reproduced below for ready reference:

“12(11)The dealer, selling goods in the course of inter-State trade or commerce to a registered dealer under sub-section (6) or under sub-section (8) of section 8 or under subsection (1) of section 5 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 read with section 76A of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), shall furnish a declaration for the purposes of Ss. (8) of the said section 8 in Form I duly countersigned and certified by the Authority specified by the Central Government authorising the establishment of the unit in the Special Economic Zone (notified u/s. 76A of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962) that the sale of goods is for the purpose of establishing a unit in such Zone.”

The relevant part of form ‘I’ is reproduced below for ready reference:

It can be seen that the ‘I’ form can be for sales made against one purchase order of the customer. There is no provision for clubbing more than one purchase order in one ‘I’ form. This position can be compared with Rule 12(1) about issue of ‘C’ forms. The said Rule is reproduced below for ready reference.

“12. (1) The declaration and the certificate referred to in Ss. (4) of section 8 shall be in Forms C and D, respectively; [Provided that Form C in force before the commencement of the Central Sales Tax Registration and Turnover (Amendment) Rules, 1974, or before the commencement of the Central Sales Tax Registration and Turnover (Amendment) Rules, 1976, may also be used up to the 31st December, 5 [1980], with suitable modifications:]

Provided further that a single declaration may cover all transactions of sale, which take place in a quarter of a financial year between the same two dealers.”

It can be seen that under this rule, the sale transactions effected in one quarter can be included in one ‘C’ form. This suggests that although the ‘C’ forms are supposed to be against each sale, however, by giving specific provision, it is provided that the sales transactions in a quarter can be included in one ‘C’ form.

In Rule 12(11) of CST (R & T) Rules, 1957, about ‘I’ form, there is no such provision allowing clubbing of transactions of one quarter in one ‘I’ form. In absence of the same, the natural outcome will be that against each sale, one ‘I’ form will be required. This position also gets confirmed by prescription in body of ‘I’ form. The form itself specifies that all the sale bills against one purchase order can be included in one ‘I’ form. It is a fact that one purchase order is one transaction. There can be more than one delivery in relation to such purchase order and accordingly more than one sale bill also may be prepared. However, it will be considered to be one transaction and therefore the form includes all the sale bills against one purchase order to be included in one ‘I’ form.

Howsoever, there is no facility to include more than one purchase order in one ‘I’ form, though they may be within one quarter. Therefore, the position is for one purchase order one ‘I’ form is required.

It is also a fact that if the declaration forms are not as per the provisions of the Rules, they are considered to be invalid. There are number of judgments wherein it is held that the procedure regarding issue of declaration forms should be strictly followed, lest the forms will be invalid and the claim may not be allowed. Reference can be made to judgment in case of India Agencies (Regd.) v. Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bangalore, (139 STC 329) (SC). Supreme Court has observed as under:

“(1) The dealer has to strictly follow the procedure and produce the relevant materials required under that Rule. Without producing the specified documents as prescribed thereunder a dealer cannot claim the benefits provided u/s. 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.

(2) Section 8(4)(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, specifically provides that the provisions of Ss. (1) shall not apply to any sale in the course of inter-state trade or commerce unless the dealer selling the goods furnishes to the prescribed authority in the prescribed manner a declaration duly filled and signed by the registered dealer to whom the goods are sold containing the prescribed particulars in a prescribed form obtained from the prescribed authority.”

Therefore, the legal position appears to be clear that unless the form is as per relevant Rule it will not be valid and will not be allowable. Thus, in respect of ‘I’ forms special care is required to be taken that they are per transaction and not on quarterly basis.

levitra

SIGNIFICANT AMENDMENTS IN CENVAT CREDIT

fiogf49gjkf0d
1. Scope and background:

1.1 Scope of ‘Inputs’/Input Services — Subject of extensive litigations:

The scope of ‘inputs’ and ‘input services’ eligible to CENVAT credit under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR) has been subject of extensive judicial controversy having significant implications.

The Supreme Court had interpreted the scope of ‘inputs’ narrowly in the case of Maruti Suzuki Ltd. v. CCE, (2009) 240 ELT 41 (SC).

In Chemplast Ltd. v. CCE, (2010) 17 STR 253, it was held that ‘input services’ definition including activities relating to business cannot be interpreted to include post-manufacturing activities. In Kbace Tech Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 18 STR 281, a narrow interpretation of ‘input service’ was made on the basis of Supreme Court ruling in Maruti Suzuki (supra).

In the mean time, the Bombay High Court in a landmark ruling in Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, (2009) 15 STR 657 (Bom.) held that scope of ‘input services’ is very wide to cover all business related services.

However, in CCE v. Manikgarh Cements Works, (2010) 18 STR 275 (Tri.-Mumbai), the Tribunal, held that the Bombay High Court ruling in Coca Cola case has been impliedly overruled by the Supreme Court ruling in Maruti Suzuki in regard to inputs, and a narrow interpretation was given to the scope of ‘input service’. This ruling was confirmed by the Bombay High Court in CCE v. Manikgarh Cement, (2010) 20 STR 456 (Bom.).

In a subsequent ruling by the Bombay High Court in CCE v. Ultratech Cement Ltd., (2010) 20 STR 577 (Bom.), after considering the Supreme Court ruling in Maruti Suzuki and the Bombay High Court ruling in Coca Cola, a wide interpretation has been given to the scope of ‘input services’ eligible to CENVAT credit.

Amidst all this, in a subsequent ruling, the Supreme Court in Ramala Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. (2010) 260 ELT 321 (SC) doubted the Supreme Court ruling in Maruti Suzuki and has referred the matter to a larger Bench.

On this backdrop, significant and far-reaching changes have been made in CCR w.e.f. 1-4-2011, in particular relating to scope of ‘inputs’/ ‘input services’ eligible to credit rule providing for proportionate credit rules, point of credit availment, etc.

The more important amendments, essentially from a service provider’s perspective are discussed hereafter.

1.2 Government clarification:

Relevant extract from the Department clarification dated 28-2-2011 explaining the amendments is as under:

Para 1.1

The changes in the Cenvat Credit Rules are guided inter alia by the following considerations:

(a) Describe the scope of eligible inputs and input services more clearly so as to minimise disputes in their interpretation;

(b) Eliminate distortions and areas of tax avoidance arising from differential treatment of goods and services used for similar purposes;

(c) Provide a practical scheme for the segregation of Cenvat credits used in respect of final products and output services where they are partially exempted with condition that no such credits shall be taken;

(d) Liberalise the provisions in certain areas to meet the legitimate demands of business;

Overall comments:
An overall study of the amendments in CCR in totality clearly indicates that the CENVAT credit benefit of service tax paid on input services, would be substantially curtailed with effect from 1-4-2011.

The rate of service tax was increased from 5% to 10% during a short period of about 15 months. At that time, questions were posed before the Government, as to how would the business and end consumers absorb the 100% increase in a short time. At that time, Government had explained to the effect that impact of increase in the rate of service tax would be substantially neutralised by introduction of CENVAT credit mechanism across goods and services. The amendments are clearly against the stated position of the Government.

Further, it is the cardinal principle of VAT/GST tax system prevalent in over 100 countries that taxes paid on expenditure incurred for the purpose of business can be set off against VAT/GST payable at the output stage. Amendments in CENVAT credit denying credit of service tax paid on business expenses, is against the principles of VAT/ GST system prevalent world-wide.

Further, amendments do not appear to be trade/ taxpayer-friendly in the backdrop of imminent introduction of GST regime.

2. Exempted services:
Definition of ‘exempted services’ in Rule 2(e) of CCR has been amended to include taxable service, which is partially exempted, on the condition that no credit of inputs/input services used for taxable service shall be taken.

An Explanation has been added to clarify that ‘exempted services’ includes trading.

Comments:
(a) It is commonly found that a person is often engaged in trading activity (buying and selling of goods/services). The same could exist in one or more of the following combinations:

  • Only trading
  • Manufacturing and trading
  • Services and trading
  • Manufacturing, services and trading

As regards pure trading activity, it was very clear that benefit of CENVAT credit (viz. Service Tax paid on input services and excise duty paid on inputs/capital goods) would not be available to such dealer.

In Metro Shoes Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, (2008) 10 STR 382 (Tri.-Mumbai) it was observed as under:

“. . . . . . Credit availed on the services which are directly/wholly attributable to the trading activity is ineligible to be availed as input service credit.”

In regard to persons engaged in trading activities along with manufacturing/services/or both, there was no clarity as regards availment of CENVAT credit on common input services.

In the case of Orion Appliances Ltd. v. CST, (2010) 19 STR 205 (Tri.-Ahd.) where the assessee, providing taxable services and engaged in trading activity, availed CENVAT credit on iput services used for taxable services as well as trading activity, the Tribunal held as under:

Trading activity is nothing but purchase and sales and cannot be called a service and therefore it cannot be considered as exempted service.

Rules 6(2) and 6(3) of CCR only deal with a situation where service provider is providing taxable and exempted services. Therefore, since trading activity is not an exempted service, Rule 6 cannot be applied to such a situation.

(b) On this backdrop, the burning issue of common input services in regard to trading activity is sought to be addressed by treating ‘trading’ as ‘exempted service’ through insertion of an Explanation in Rule 2(e) of CCR which defines ‘exempted services’.

This is a significant amendment, spelling out an important policy perspective, which is likely to result in curtailment on CENVAT credit available to service providers involved in trading business. It is felt that a clarification need to be issued to the effect that the amendment would be effective 1-4-201

Further, one can understand ‘trading activities’ being treated on similar lines as ‘exempted services’ for the limited purpose of determination of proportionate credit under Rule 6 of CCR. However, amendment made in section 2(e) of CCR, is likely to result in larger legal issues as to whether ‘trading activity’ can be regarded as ‘service’ at all so as to be regarded as ‘exempted services’.

(c) It seems that all services in respect of which, abatement is claimed (in terms of Notification No. 1/2006-ST) would now get treated as ‘exempted services’. Thus services like mandap keeper construction of complex commercial or industrial construction, catering, etc. where abatement is allowed subject to the condition that CENVAT credit is not availed, would all be now treated as ‘exempt servi

Hiring of manned cranes to ONGC – Cranes at disposal of ONGC and per day hire charges paid – Service tax paid thereon – Services of staff and maintenance incidental to hiring – ONGC alone entitled to exclusive use of cranes – Transfer of right to use goods – Assam Value Added Tax, 2003.

fiogf49gjkf0d
4. 2012 53 VST 401 (Gauhati) – Brahmaputra Valley Construction and Suppliers v. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. and Others

Hiring of manned cranes to ONGC – Cranes at disposal of ONGC and per day hire charges paid – Service tax paid thereon – Services of staff and maintenance incidental to hiring – ONGC alone entitled to exclusive use of cranes – Transfer of right to use goods – Assam Value Added Tax, 2003.


Facts:

ONGC entered into contracts with dealers to provide manned cranes according to technical specifications with the necessary accessories with valid permits, insurance, for performing the duties as advised by ONGC, at the appointed time and place. The agreement showed that the activity was in respect of hiring of cranes. The work was to be executed by ONGC itself. The cranes were at the disposal of ONGC and per day hire charges were paid, except maintenance days. The services of staff operating them and maintenance were incidental to hiring of the cranes. The appellant’s case was that it owned cranes and in pursuant to notice inviting tenders, they entered into the contract. The cranes were at ONGC’s disposal without transfer of possession and custody thereof. All operating costs were to be borne by the appellant and thus there was no transfer of ownership of the cranes, nor of the right to use to ONGC and they paid service tax considering this as taxable service. The Revenue contended that the relevant clauses of the agreement such as the availability of cranes on a particular day or time (including maintenance off days), its operational time, arrangements of fuel lubricants etc. remained a sole discretion of ONGC, indicating dominion and control of ONGC during the entire period of operation.

Held:

For all the practical purposes, it was evident that the use of the cranes was transferred to ONGC for the period of contract and the assessee had no right to use the same. Such a right having been transferred to ONGC for consideration. The mere fact that the responsibility of the maintenance and use was vested with the assessee, does not deviate from the nature of transaction being transfer of right to use. The taxability u/s. 65(105)(zzzzj) under the Finance Act, 1994 – supply of tangible goods services would have been applicable if the right to possession and control remained with the service provider, which is not the case here. The judgement of the Hon. Supreme Court in BSNL vs. Union of India [2006] 3 VST 95 (SC) was relied upon.

levitra

M/S Sarad Bricks Industries And Others V. State of Tripura and Others,[2011] 42 VST 485 (Gauhati)

fiogf49gjkf0d
VAT- Refusal to Issue Declaration – For Default in Payment of Tax by Another Firm in Which One Partner of The Dealer Firm is a Partner – Not Valid – Tripura Value Added Tax Act, 2004.

Facts
The dealer, a partnership firm was entitled to get prescribed forms upon payment of tax under the Tripura Value Added Tax Act, 2004. The Department refused to issue forms to the dealer despite payment of tax by it, on the ground that the partnership firm in which one of the partner of the dealer firm is a partner, has not discharged its tax liability under the act. The dealer filed a writ petition before the Gauhati High Court against the refusal to issue forms by the department.

Held

The dealer firm is an entity independent of the fact as to who its partner is. When no tax is payable by the dealer, the issue of forms can not be refused in terms of memorandum, for default in payment of tax by the other firm, in which one partner of the dealer firm is also a partner. Accordingly, the High Court directed the department to issue forms to the dealer.

levitra

2012 (54) VST 300 (CESTAT – New Delhi) Hero Honda Motors Limited vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, New Delhi

fiogf49gjkf0d
Permitting to use brand name of motor vehicle for motor vehicle lubricant and oil manufactured by other parties amounts to intellectual property service.

Facts:
The appellant, a manufacturer of two wheeler vehicles entered into an agreement with oil manufacturers in terms of which the oil manufacturers were permitted to use brand name on the containers of products manufactured by them, for royalty as per terms of the agreement. Department took a view that it was taxable service falling under the category of “Intellectual Property Service” as the said agreement was registered under sections 9 & 11 of the Trade Marks Act of 1999 and invoking a longer period of limitation, service tax was demanded for October 2004 to January 2006. The Appellant stated that it relied on the Circular No. 80/10/04-ST dated September 17, 2004 that Intellectual property right within the meaning and for the purpose of section 65(55a) are confined to those Intellectual property rights governed by specific legislations in India. Further it may be noted that a person can certainly claim proprietary rights under common law in respect of such integrated circuits and undisclosed information but they are not covered under Indian legislation and hence not taxable as it is outside the ambit of the definition of Intellectual Property Right.

Held:
Admittedly, the goods manufactured by the oil companies are to be used in the vehicles manufactured by the appellant company and have a strong connection with the same. The appearance of trade mark “Hero Honda” & “Hero Honda 4T Plus” on oil products definitely indicates a connection between the said companies and the appellant’s product. Further, the facts of the case do not initiate entering of an agreement and thereby being registered under the Trade Marks Act of 1999. In case the oil company had used the trade mark without entering into agreement with the Appellant, it would have amounted to infringement of their right under section 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act. Further the Tribunal did not agree that the permission to use the said trade mark to the oil company could not be covered by the definition of “Intellectual Property Right” and “Intellectual Property Services” as appearing in the Finance Act, 1994 and hence demand was confirmed.

However, the Tribunal held that mere failure on the part of the assessee when the issue involved is a complicated interpretation of the provisions of the law cannot be equated with malafide suppression / misstatement and accordingly directed that a part demand would be within the limitation period may be requantified by the original authority to whom the matter was remanded for the said purpose. Penalty was set aside as no suppression was found.

levitra

2012 (54) VST 264 (Ker) Kerala State Industrial Enterprises Limited vs. CCE, Thiruvananthapuram

fiogf49gjkf0d
Air cargo handling service: Short duration of time taken for unloading, x-raying, etc. of export cargo and passenger baggage cannot be said to be time of storage or warehousing of goods.

Facts:
Appellant maintained a terminal at the Trivandrum airport. Air cargo for export and passenger baggage for transport was brought for unloading, x-raying & transporting of goods by airline officials or employees/ agents of cargo owners. There was a time lag between the arrival of the cargo/passenger baggage at the appellant’s terminal and shipment by air. In case the time of retention of cargo/passenger baggage at the terminal was beyond 48 hours, appellant charged and discharged liability of service tax under “storage & warehousing services”.

The appellant contended that the Department cannot bring to tax a service which enjoys exemption under one entry of the Act (that is Cargo Handling Service which exempts export cargo and passenger baggage from the levy of the tax) by resorting to another charging section of the very same Act. Reliance was placed on Air India Ltd vs. Cochin International Airport 2010 (1) KLT 190 and on Circular No. B11/1/2002 dated August 01, 2002.

The Department concluded that the appellant was not carrying on cargo handling services but the activity of the appellant was taxable under the “Storage & Warehousing services’ and hence demanded tax.

Tribunal held that in case the cargo/passenger baggage retained for a shorter period (less than 48 hours) is not conclusive of the fact that it is not storage and warehousing services. It held that the retention of cargo/passenger baggage by the appellant irrespective of the period shall also be covered under the “Storage & Warehousing services”.

Held:
Even though the Circular B11/1/2002 dated 1st August, 2002 was issued with reference to another charging section, what is clear from the circular is that the intention of the Government is to avoid incidence of tax on export cargo and passenger baggage. Further, the Department or the Tribunal made an inquiry as regards whether the appellant was charging various rates for the same service depending upon the period of retention of the goods, the additional charges recovered could be attributed to the storage and warehousing service and be subjected to service tax. Hence the matter was remanded to the Department for conducting enquiry. If the appellant is liable to service tax following our judgment, there is no scope of penalty as no contumacious conduct can be presumed in this matter.

levitra

2012 (27) STR 447 (Tri.-Mumbai) Raymonds Ltd. vs. C. C. E., Mumbai-III

fiogf49gjkf0d
Pre-deposit paid through utilisation of CENVAT credit account – Appeal disposed off by way of refund-Appellant opted out of CENVAT credit scheme and therefore not in a position to utilise CENVAT credit – Held, Appellant entitled to claim refund in cash.

Facts:
The appellant pre-deposited amount of Rs. 1 Crore by way of utilisation of CENVAT credit as per the order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal thereafter, set aside the order appealed against by way of remand. The appellant consequently asked for the refund of pre-deposit in cash. The adjudicating authority sanctioned the same but ordered to be utilised through CENVAT credit account. However, in the interim the appellant opted out of the CENVAT scheme and therefore, was not able to utilise the CENVAT. Therefore, appellant asked for refund of pre-deposit in cash.

The appellant relied on the Delhi High Court Judgment in case of Voltas Ltd. 112 ELT 34 to claim refund of pre-deposit on the matter being set aside by way of remand. The Appellant also relied on the decision of Jharkhand High Court in the case of Commissioner vs. Ashok ARC 7 STR 365.

The Department quoting 198 ELT 400 and 183 ELT 38, contended that since the Appellant has paid pre-deposit out of CENVAT account, he is entitled to get refund only through CENVAT credit account.

Held:
The Tribunal distinguished judgments quoted by the Department, stating that it was not known whether in the given case the assessee was entitled to use CENVAT credit or not. Moreover, in the other case the appeal was dismissed being less than Rs.50,000/-. On the other hand, the Jharkhand High Court’s decision has considered the facts identical to the case and had held that the appellant was entitled to claim refund in cash.

Relying on the Jharkhand High Court’s judgment in case of Ashok ARC (supra), the Tribunal held that the appellant is entitled to claim refund of pre-deposit in cash.

levitra

2012 (27) STR 377 (Tri.-Del.) WLC College India Ltd vs. Comm. Of Service Tax, Delhi

fiogf49gjkf0d
Training and coaching to persons who have education at least upto 12th Standard – In fields of Fashion Technology, Advertisement, Graphic design, Media, Hospitality etc. – Is it vocational training eligible for exemption?- Held, Yes.

Facts:
The appellant was engaged in providing voluntary training and coaching in the field of Business, Fashion Technology, Advertisement, Graphic design, Media, Hospitality and Hospital administration. Appellant admitted that the activities were falling within the definition of commercial coaching and training. However, he claimed exemption under Notification no. 9/2003 ST dated 30/06/2003 exempting services provided by Vocational Training Institutes. The said exemption was rescinded on 30/06/2004 and was reintroduced on 10/09/2004. Appellant paid service tax for the period 01/07/2004 to 09/09/2004. However, he again claimed exemption under Notification no. 24/2004 ST dated 10/09/2004 from 10/09/2004 onwards.

The Revenue contended that the appellant provided training to persons who had education at least upto 12th Standard and such training provided to persons with such education cannot be considered as vocational training. The Revenue also argued that training in areas like welding, carpentry, etc. where the level of education required is low, qualified to be “vocational training”.

According to the appellant, the matter was already examined at length by the Tribunal in the past in their own case at Bangalore and also in case of another appellant – Ashu Export Promoters Pvt. Ltd. 25 STR 359.

Held:
Following judgments in case of Ashu Export Promoters Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and in case of the appellant’s own case – 8 STR 475, it was decided that the appellant is entitled to claim exemption.

levitra