Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Service tax penalty can’t survive when assessee acted on dept.’s own view of non-taxability: Delhi High Court. *  GST section 74 extended limitation questionable when form 26AS mismatch was already known: Karnataka High Court grants interim relief. *  CGST demand prima facie impermissible after state GST settlement under section 128A: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court asks GSTAT to sympathetically consider delay as taxpayers pursued remedy before wrong forum. *  Supreme Court stays Tripura High Court ruling protecting genuine buyers from ITC denial over supplier’s GST default. *  Diary entries alone can’t prove clandestine removal of goods: CESTAT quashes excise penalty on steel trader. *  Customs could investigate preferential tariff claims even before sec. 28DA: Delhi High Court. *  Customs dept. relied on fake AI generated case laws: supreme court quashes Rs. 425.28 crore penalty. *  No GST exemption in affiliation and annual registration charges for admission or conduct Of examinations: GSTAT. *  Mere invoices, cheque payments insufficient to establish genuine movement of goods: GSTAT restores Rs. 43.44 lakh ITC demand. *  Consolidated GST show cause notice covering multiple financial years is not without jurisdiction: Delhi High Court. *  Construction of independent houses on separate plots not taxable as ‘Residential Complex’ without common facilities: CESTAT. *  GST penalty exceeding statutory maximum unsustainable; Allahabad High Court quashes ? 50,000/- penalty after taxpayer filed return and paid late fee. *  GST order against standard chartered bank passed without hearing set aside by Bombay High Court. *  Retracted statements can’t be relied upon without cross-examination: CESTAT quashes gold confiscation. *  Burden to prove misclassification lies on customs department: CESTAT. *  CESTAT quashes Rs. 98 lakh excise demand on clearance of used refractory brick scrap. *  Service tax demand on irrigation works quashed: Karnataka High Court rules sale of goods component not taxable as service. *  GSTAT restores tax and penalty for transporting iron scrap without E-way bill citing intent to evade tax. *  Madras High Court stays GST recovery from directors without opportunity to show cause under section 89. *  Madras high court stays GST recovery notice against directors; finds prima facie case on applicability of section 79(1)(c). *  Procedural lapses can’t justify harsh punishment without serious customs breach: CESTAT quashes customs broker licence revocation. *  Service tax payable on land leasing and sports complex charges: CESTAT. *  Settled customs dispute can’t be reopened through Article 226 challenge to interest liability: Delhi High Court. *  Mere facilitation of customs clearance can’t establish knowledge of smuggling: Madras High Court. *  GST registration cancellation stayed: Allahabad High Court questions 99% ITC utilisation cap under rule 86B. *  Composition scheme lapses automatically on crossing Rs. 1.5 crore turnover: GSTAT. *  Gujarat High Court quashes GST cancellation orders after officer relied on non-existent AI-generated case laws. *  Importers liable for customs duty benefits availed through manipulated scrips: Delhi High Court. *  Procedural E-way bill lapse alone can’t justify penalty where genuine transaction and absence of tax evasion are established: GSTAT.
Subject News *  Documentary evidence dominates probe, further custody unwarranted: mumbai court grants bail in Rs. 22.44 crore customs duty evasion case. *  Business premises can’t remain sealed for non-participation in GST search: Allahabad High Court. *  GST pre-deposit must be refunded proportionately when taxpayer partly succeeds in appeal: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court grants 30 days to file GST appeal; keeps pre-deposit issue open due to deposit in parallel CGST proceedings. *  GST demand can’t exceed amount proposed in SCN: Allahabad High Court quashes Rs. 20.47 Crore order. *  Hundreds-of-crores GST demand and heavy 10% pre-deposit no ground to bypass statutory appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Delhi High Court refuses to entertain challenge to gold confiscation due to statutory appeal remedy and unexplained delay. *  Procedural error in customs broker licence inquiry can be rectified through remand: Delhi High Court. *  GSTR-2A mismatch alone can’t justify ITC denial without invoice-wise verification; personal hearing mandatory: GSTAT. *  GST order passed without uploading personal hearing notices violates sec. 75(4): Allahabad High Court. *  TAX EVASION - Sec. 74 GST SCN quashed for not spelling out fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression: Allahabad High Court. *  STPI’s SOFTEX certification and NoC charges taxable as business support services: CESTAT. *  Suspicion can’t replace proof: CESTAT quashes penalty in alleged gold-smuggling operation. *   Limitation runs from communication of order: Madras High Court upholds rejection of delayed GST Appeals. *  Rajasthan High Court quashes GST demand over unsigned show cause notice. *  ITC recovery upheld where supplier failed to deposit GST: Rajasthan High Court. *  Customs commissioner’s empowered to make port trust liable for duty on pilfered goods: Supreme Court. *  Rectification proceedings can’t be used to challenge an uncontested GST assessment through a writ petition: Andhra Pradesh HC. *  GST proceedings against deceased proprietor unsustainable without notice to legal heir: GSTAT. *  Mere availment of ineligible self-assessed ITC doesn’t amount to suppression without evidence of fraud or wilful misstatement: GSTAT. *  Disposal of mining overburden by entity authorised by mining lease holder constitutes taxable service: CESTAT. *  Toll plaza data not mandatory for ITC refund: GSTAT. *  Disputed GST fraud allegations require investigation: Punjab and Haryana High Court makes interim bail absolute in alleged fraud and GST fraud case. *  Non-manufacturer contractor liable to deposit excess excise duty collected from buyer: CESTAT. *  GST order can’t reject taxpayer’s reply as “not satisfactory” without reasons: Madhya Pradesh High Court. *  Uncorroborated statements can’t establish alleged diversion of duty-free goods: CESTAT. *  Erection services were not liable to service tax prior to 10th september 2004: CESTAT. *  Sec. 74 GST notice must spell out statutory ingredients for invoking extended tax demand proceedings: Allahabad High Court. *  No jurisdictional bar under section 6(2)(b) in parallel CGST SGST proceedings: Delhi High Court refuses to bypass GST appeal remedy. *  Madras High Court remits GST demand for fresh adjudication after taxpayer claims it was unaware of SCN following business closure.  

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