Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Missing seized records must be considered while testing ITC claim; duplicate GST demands ordered corrected: Delhi High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be rejected without addressing taxpayer’s grounds: Allahabad High Court. *  Surplus IGST credit can offset CGST, SGST shortfall: GSTAT. *  GST refund can’t be denied when cancelled airfares are returned with tax: GSTAT. *  3 Hearing notices issued within 2 minutes: Gujarat High Court flags portal flaw, seeks report. *  GSTR-9, GSTR-9C filing for FY 2025-26 enabled; pending GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B must be filed first. *  Dupattas are exempt fabrics, can’t be taxed as fibres at 4%: Madras High Court. *  Full transitional credit allowed on capital goods received after GST rollout: GSTAT denies Rs. 6.99 lakh export duty credit. *  GST return mismatch alone can’t justify fraud proceedings: GSTAT orders fresh adjudication under section 73. *  Supplier found non-existent later can’t alone justify input tax credit denial: GSTAT. *  GST interest stops once tax reaches government account, can’t run until return filing: GSTAT. *  Cancelled flat booking- GST refund can’t be denied without excluding COVID period from limitation: GSTAT. *  India notifies rules of origin for India–New Zealand FTA. *  Incomplete E-bike kits classifiable as complete vehicles, but not eligible for CKD duty concession: CESTAT. *  Same GST rate on main input and output can’t by itself bar inverted duty refund: GSTAT. *  Unjust enrichment doesn’t apply to customs refunds from assessments finalised before July 13, 2006: Gujarat High Court. *  CENVAT credit can’t be denied solely because plant And machinery are embedded in earth: Karnataka High Court. *  DFIA exports ineligible for RoDTEP benefits; customs directs repayment with applicable interest. *  Second E-Way bill alone doesn’t prove another supply: GSTAT. *  Bail denied in Rs. 1.19 crore fake GST refund case over risk of accused absconding again: Punjab and Haryana High Court. *  GST registration can be restored after revocation deadline if outstanding dues are paid: Gauhati High Court. *  Multiple GST proceedings over same suppliers: Calcutta High Court directs dept. to share findings for adjudication. *  E-Governance portal services not OIDAR, fixed deposit interest not taxable: CESTAT. *  Rs. 500 Stamp duty required on authority letters for CAs, CMA and GST practitioners in Pune GST division.  *  Rs. 1.10 crore GST refund must be paid in cash after business closure: Allahabad High Court. *  Godown rent attracts 18% GST even when used exclusively for exempt agricultural warehousing: AAR. *  GST portal launches "Multi-State Registration" facility: one master TRN for registration applications across multiple States/UTs. *  RoDTEP scheme extended till 31st December, 2026.  *  Mere disagreement with order can’t override Rs. 20 lakh appeal limit: GSTAT. *  Customs interest can’t be backdated before confiscation liability is determined; nearly 8 year period excluded: Delhi High Court.
Subject News *  GST summons: anticipatory bail maintainable without arrest order, but relief denied in evasion case: Allahabad High Court. *  GST Appeal can’t be decided without hearing taxpayer’s objections to fresh evidence: Allahabad High Court. *  GST ITC can’t be reversed merely because supplier grants discount without reducing tax liability: GSTAT. *  Mere quoting of GST provision is not a valid charge: GSTAT quashes ITC denial. *  Personal hearing mandatory before adverse GST order, even without taxpayer’s request: Rajasthan High Court. *  Parallel bail pleas without full disclosure amount to abuse of process Rs. 43.08 crore GST case sent for fresh hearing: Supreme Court. *  GST refund based on unchallenged advance ruling can’t be recovered using later circular: GSTAT. *  Payment of GST alone doesn’t end interest and penalty liability when tax and interest remain unpaid beyond 30 days of notice: GSTAT. *  GST demand over builders’ 80% procurement rule requires reasoned adjudication: GSTAT. *  Eligible ITC doesn’t automatically entitle taxpayers to compensation cess refund on domestic sales: GSTAT. *  GST confiscation order passed before reply deadline invalid: GSTAT. *  GST interest can’t be retained after tax refund on delayed export receipts: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be dismissed over pre-deposit shortfall without opportunity To respond: Bombay High Court. *  DGGI SCN can’t be challenged before reply and adjudication:Chhattisgarh High Court. *  GST input tax credit can’t be denied solely due to supplier’s retrospective registration cancellation: GSTAT. *  GST notice must explain fraud allegations; merely repeating section 74 Is not enough:  Himachal Pradesh High Court. *  Audit detection alone can’t justify GST fraud penalty; specific suppression must be proved: GSTAT. *  GST order uploaded only under ‘Additional Notices’ tab without separate intimation set aside: Calcutta High Court. *  Service Tax appeal can’t be rejected for missing pre-deposit proof when payment is already recorded: CESTAT. *  SGST dept. can’t hear appeal against CGST order: Calcutta High Court. *  Mere dispatch of tax order can’t prove service or make appeal time-barred: CESTAT. *  Dealer incentives can’t be taxed merely on ledger entries: CESTAT. *  DGFT orders quashed for failure to supply DRI letter relied upon in SCN: Bombay High Court. *  GST penalty u/s 122(1A) can’t apply to Pre-2021 transactions; unregistered beneficiaries also covered: Delhi High Court. *  Expired E-way bill caused by wrong PIN code can’t justify GST penalty without intent to evade tax: GSTAT. *  Used railway rails can’t be taxed as track material without proof they are fit for reuse: CESTAT. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand on different issue: Delhi High Court. *  ITC dispute involves no question of law: GSTAT directs appeal to Vice-President. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand On different issue: Delhi High Court. *  No E-way bill required for interstate goods movement in november 2017: GSTAT quashes detention and penalty.  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/Case Law/2013-14/2021

Applicability of service tax on testing and analysis of IT software w.e.f 16/05/2008.

Case:- COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE Vs AZTECSOFT LTD.
 
Citation:- 2013-TIOL-1541-CESTAT-MUM
 
Brief facts:-The appellant, M/s. Aztecsoft Ltd., Pune, were engaged in providing services relating to testing and analysis of computer software for their clients located in India and abroad during the period 01/07/2003 to 31/03/2008. However, they did not take any service tax registration nor did they discharge any service tax liability. Accordingly, two show-cause notices were issued to the appellant, one dated 20/10/2008 demanding service tax of Rs.6,27,69,689/- for the period July 2007 to March 2008 and another notice dated Feb 2008 demanding service tax of Rs.15,12,19,673/- for the period 01/07/2003 to 31/03/2007. The notices proposed to recover interest on the above demands apart from imposing penalties. Both these notices were adjudicated by the impugned order and the Ld. Commissioner dropped the demands on the ground that testing IT software was not part of the technical testing and analysis service until 2008 and the activity of development of IT software itself was excluded from the scope of service tax until 2008 and therefore, the service tax demand cannot be sustained.
 
Appellant’s contentions:- The Hon'ble apex Court in the case of TCS Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2004 (178) ELT 22(SC) = (2004-TIOL-87-SC-CT-LB) had held that “software in India” is goods for the purpose of levy of sales tax. Similarly, the CBEC vide Circular No.81/2/2005-ST dated 07/10/2005 had clarified that maintenance or repair of software was leviable to service tax under the maintenance or repair service. Therefore, testing of software, being goods, would come within the purview of technical testing and analysis with effect from 01/07/2003 onwards. The reliance placed by theCommissioner on the Stag Software Pvt. Ltd. case (cited supra) was not correct as the Tribunal in that case committed an error in interpreting the judgment of the Hon'ble apex Court in the case of TCS by holding that only canned software can be goods.
 
Respondent’s contentions:- The Ld. Counsel for the respondent submitted that testing of IT software was made specifically taxable from 16/05/2008 under the category of technical testing and analysis service and therefore prior to that date the said activity was not leviable to service tax. He also submitted that testing of software was integral to and forming part of software design and development activity and IT software services were brought under the tax net with effect from 16/05/2008 and therefore, the adjudicating authority has correctly dropped the demand. He also relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Stag Software Pvt. Ltd., (cited supra) andRelq Software Pvt. Ltd., Vs. CST, Bangalore, reported in2009 (14) STR 779 = (2008-TIOL-2573-CESTAT-BANG) and the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the same case reported in2011 (23) STR 449 (Kar).
 
Reasoning of judgment:- According to Hon’ble judge Prior to 16/05/2005 Section 65(106) of Finance Act, 1994 defined technical testing and analysis as follows:
 
“Technical testing and analysis means any service in relation to physical, chemical ,biological or any other scientific testing or analysis of goods or material or an immovable property but does not include any testing or analysis service provided in relation to the human beings or animals."
 
The said definition was amended in the Finance Act, 2008 and the amended definition reads as follows:
 
“Technical testing and analysis means any service in relation to physical, chemical, biological or any other scientific testing or analysis of goods or material or information technology software or any immoveable property but does not include any testing or analysis service provided in relation to the human beings or animals”.
 
Information technology service was brought under the service tax net with effect from 16/07/2008. Consequently, the activity of testing and analysis of IT software was also brought into the tax net by amending the definition. If IT software was already included within the scope of technical testing and analysis service, there was no need for any amendment to be specifically made in Section 65(106). In the budget instructions issued vide letter 334/1/2008-TRU dated 29/02/2008, in para 4 thereof, it has been specifically stated that service provided in relation to information technology (IT) software for use in the course or furtherance, of business or commerce has been specifically included in the list of taxable service vide Section65 (105) (zzzze). In para 4.1.7, it has been stated that following consequential amendments in other taxable services are also being made, namely, to include testing and analysis of IT software services under technical testing and analysis service (Section 65(105) (zzh). Similar amendments were made in the scope of business auxiliary service, technical inspection and certification service, management, maintenance or repair of properties, consulting engineer's service, etc. to bring activities relating to IT software in the tax net in the aforesaid categories. This Tribunal in the case of Relq Software Pvt. Ltd. (cited supra) had also held that testing and analysis of IT software would be effective only from 16/05/2008 when the said activity was specifically included under technical testing and analysis service. The said decision of the Tribunal was also upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the same case cited supra.
 
In view of the above position, hon’ble judge were of the considered view that testing and analysis of IT software would be leviable to service tax only with effect from 16/05/2008 and therefore, there is no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the adjudicating authority. Thus, the appeal filed by the Revenue is devoid of merits and is dismissed.
 
Decision:- Appeal was dismissed.
 
Comments:- The essence of this case is that the Information technology service was brought under the service tax net with effect from 16/07/2008. Consequently, the activity of testing and analysis of IT software was also brought into the tax net by amending the definition. If IT software was already included within the scope of technical testing and analysis service, there was no need for any amendment to be specifically made in the definition of technical testing and analysis service. Thus, testing and analysis of IT software would be leviable to service tax only with effect from 16/05/2008.
 
 
 

Department News


Query

 
PRADEEP JAIN, F.C.A.

Head Office : -

Address :
"SUGYAN", H - 29, SHASTRI NAGAR, JODHPUR (RAJ.) - 342003

Phone No. :
0291 - 2439496, 0291 - 3258496

Mobile No. :
09314722236

Fax No. :0291 - 2439496


Branch Office : -

Address:
1008, 10th FLOOR, SUKH SAGAR COMPLEX,
NEAR FORTUNE LANDMARK HOTEL, USMANPURA,
ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380013

Phone No. :
079-32999496, 27560043

Mobile No. :
093777659496, 09377649496

E-mail :pradeep@capradeepjain.com