Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  GST registration cancellation without reasons amounts to ‘Economic Death’ of business: Supreme Court. *  No GST refund if appeal before GSTAT is filed late: Gujarat High Court. *  Mere upload of GST notice on portal not valid service, appeal limitation won’t start: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Taxpayer can’t be penalised for missing notices hidden under ‘Additional Notices/Orders’: Calcutta High Court allows fresh adjudication. *  State tax officer can’t issue GST SCN beyond CBIC-assigned jurisdiction: Bombay High Court stays recovery proceedings. *  Earlier 7.5% Pre-Deposit must count towards mandatory 10% for Appeal: Uttarakhand high court quashes CESTAT Order. *  Third Parties can’t challenge GST Advance Rulings merely due to financial impact: Karnataka HC *  GST SCN generated using AI tool quashed: Punjab & Haryana High Court *  Bank Attachment Quashed as Madras HC Quashes GST Order Issued Against Deceased Person *  ITC Blocking Order for Failure to Record ‘Reason to Believe’ U/R 86A Quashed: Allahabad High Court *  Govt Extends GSTAT Appeal Filing Deadline From 30 June to July 31, 2026 *  GST Demand on RWA Stayed: Allahabad High Court Questions Taxability of Electricity Distribution to Flat Owners *  CBIC Clarifies Jurisdiction After GST Registration Transfer: Earlier Proceedings Remain Valid, New Officer to Continue Action *  GST authorities’ certification not mandatory for reimbursement, but tax payment must be proven: Karnataka HC *  Contractor can’t seek gst reimbursement through writ when contract has arbitration clause: Karnataka HC *  Unsigned Order Is No Order in Law: AP HC Quashes GST Assessment Order for Want of Officer’s Signature *  Customs Can’t Levy Rs. 1.36 Crore Cost Recovery Charges Without Proof of Full-Day Officer Deployment: CESTAT  *  12% IGST Payable On Imported Dialysis Machine Parts: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Admits Challenge to GST Limitation Extension Notifications; Grants Protection Against Coercive Recovery *  Criminal Case Can’t Run Parallel to GST Proceedings on Same Facts: Allahabad High Court *  Allahabad High Court Stays GST Detention Order; Directs Release of Vehicle and Goods on Deposit of Rs. 1.44 Lakh *  Service Tax Can’t Be Levied on Loss-Making Contracts: Gujarat High Court *  GSTN Mandates Ship-to GSTIN in e-Invoice and e-Way Bill APIs; Introduces Voluntary e-Way Bill Closure Facility from August 1, 2026 *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred When Taxpayer Was Pursuing Rectification Remedy: Telangana High Court *  Absence of E-Way Bill and Transport Documents Justifies Customs Seizure U/s 110: Gauhati HC *  Madras High Court Upholds GST Late Fee and Penalty for Non-Filing of Annual Return, Dismisses Challenge  *  GST Records, Purchase Documents Sufficient to Discharge Burden Under Customs Act: CESTAT Orders Release of 3.65 Kg Gold  *  No Sugar Cess Payable on Sugar Exported Out of India: CESTAT *  Road Construction Services Exempt and SCN Time-Barred: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Based Solely on Form 26AS  *  ITC Freeze Upheld After GST Dept Find Suppliers Were Allegedly Fake Bill-Trading Entities: Madras HC 
Subject News *  Input service benefits can’t be denied: CESTAT allows export refund despite MMTC acting as Canalising agency. *  No service tax demand without proof of service of SCN: CESTAT. *  Service tax demand quashed as dept. fails to prove service of SCN: CESTAT *  GST : Mere allegation of inadequate consideration of reply not enough to invoke writ jurisdiction: Delhi High Court *  Onerous conditions imposed for provisional release of seized imported goods shouldn’t amount to virtual denial of relief: CESTAT. *  GST SCN without alleging fraud cannot invoke sec. 74: Karnataka High Court quashes adjudication order. *  Extended Limitation Can’t Be Invoked Merely on Form 26AS Data: CESTAT *  Revenue-Sharing with Restaurants Not Taxable as Business Support Service: CESTAT *  R. 6(3) Option Can’t Be Forced on Taxpayer; CESTAT Quashes Rs. 12.36 Crore CENVAT Credit Demand *  Excise Duty | Power Consumption Alone Can’t Prove Clandestine Manufacture: Karnataka High Court *  Madras High Court Examines DGGI’s Authority to Issue GST Penalty Orders Under Section 122, Adds DGGI as Party *  Proceedings under omitted r. 96(10) can’t survive without saving clause: andhra pradesh high court quashes gst refund recovery *  Excise duty power consumption alone can’t prove clandestine manufacture: karnataka high court *  Madras high court rules GST show cause notices must disclose grounds for invoking extended limitation *  Court Can’t Direct Extension GST Return Deadlines or Waive Interest and Penalties: Karnataka High Court *  GST Notifications Can’t Go Beyond GST Council Recommendations: Madras High Court Quashes SCN on Branded Pulses *  Appeal Can’t Be Dismissed for Delay When Dept’s Own Order Mis-states Limitation Period: CESTAT *  No Evidence of KYC or Due Diligence Breach By Customs Broker: CESTAT Quashes Licence Revocation in Export Overvaluation Case *  Glucometers Are Chemical Analysis Instruments Classifiable Under Tariff Heading 9027: CESTAT *  Validity of Post-GST Service Tax Proceedings Upheld: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Challenge to S. 73 SCN *  Rectified GST Refund Applications Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred If Original Refund Claim Was Filed Within Limitation: Gujarat HC *  Service Tax Refund Can’t Be Denied as Time-Barred When Levy Itself Is Unconstitutional: Gujarat High Court *  Same Officer Can’t Act As Auditor & Adjudicator: Karnataka High Court *  Karnataka High Court Condones 324-Day Delay, Revives Customs Appeal in Jewellery Pilferage Case  *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Order Passed Ex Parte Despite Prior ITC Reversal; Lifts Bank Attachment *  Tobacco Process Doesn’t Amount to Manufacturing: Madras High Court Quashes Rs. 1.32 Crore Compensation Cess Demand  *  Recovery Notice Unsustainable After Voluntary Reversal of Unutilised Credit: CESTAT  *  GST | ‘System Generated’ SCN Without Officer Details Invalid: Allahabad HC  *  Electronic Records Without Statutory Certification Requirements Can’t Justify Undervaluation Allegations: CESTAT *  Madras High Court Stays GST Order, Finds Prima Facie Merit in Plea Against S. 74 Proceedings Based on S. 73 Intimation  

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