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/2013-14/1606

Commission forgone by automobile dealers if banks provide loans at low rate of interest liable to service tax under BAS.
Case:-TOYOTA LAKOZY AUTO PVT LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, MUMBAI-II

Citation:-  2013-TIOL-814-CESTAT-MUM


 Brief Facts:-Common issue is involved. Therefore, the applications for waiver of pre-deposit are being taken up together. The applicants filed the applications for waiver of pre-deposit of total amount of service tax of Rs. 3,15,81,666/-, interest and penalties.
 
The applicants are dealers of motor vehicles of M/s Toyota Kirloskar Motors Ltd. A total amount of Rs. 2,02,82,946/- was confirmed on the ground that the applicants are providing service of commission agent to the car manufactures. A demand of Rs. 65,56,549/- is confirmed on the charges received from customers for registration of car with the state registration authority on the ground that the applicants are providing customer care service on behalf of the manufacturers. A demand of Rs.22,09,353/- is confirmed in respect of commission foregone on marketing of loan of various banks.
 
Appellant Contentions:- The Appellant submits that the applicant is not acting as commission agent of the car manufacturers. The applicant is a registered dealer and purchasing cars from the manufacturer and thereafter selling the same on payment of appropriate VAT. As the applicants are purchasing and selling the car, therefore, it cannot be said that the applicants are commission agent of the car manufacturer. Hence the demand is not sustainable. In respect of the demand of Rs.65,56,549/-, the contention of the applicant is that the applicant is providing assistance of the car purchasers in respect of registration of the car with the RTO. The demand is confirmed on the ground that the applicants are providing business auxiliary service as the applicants are providing customer care service on behalf of the manufacturer as the applicants are purchasing the car from the manufacturer. The appellant submit that there cannot be any customer car service on behalf of the manufacturer when the applicants are assisting the car purchasers with the state transport authorities, it cannot be said that the applicants are promoting the business of state transport authorities as the applicants are only providing assistance for consideration to the car purchasers.
 
In respect of the demand of Rs. 22,09,353/-, the contention of the applicant is that in case where the car purchasers want to avail the facility of loan from the banks, the applicants are negotiating on behalf of the customers with the bank regarding the rate of interest and in case the rate of interest Is agreed to be lower than the existing rateof interest, the applicants are foregoing part of the commission receivable from the banks and the applicants are paying service tax on the commission received from the banks. Hence the demand is not sustainable.
 
Respondent Contentions:-The Respondent submitted that the applicants are interested in promoting the business of car manufacturer as the applicants are registered dealer. Therefore, the applicants are receiving certain amounts by way of dealer discount. Hence the demand is rightly made.
 
In respect of other demands, the contention is that the applicants are providing assistance to the car purchasers in getting loan at lower rate by foregoing their commission does not has force. Hence the demand is rightly made.
 
 
Reasoning of Judgment:-We have considered the submission from both side and perused the record, we find that the applicants are registered dealers of the car manufacturers M/s. Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt Ltd. and are purchasing the car and thereafter selling on payment of VAT. In these circumstances prima facie we find merit in the contention of the applicant that the applicants are not acting as commission agent of the manufacturer. On the same ground the amount received from the car purchaser for registration of the cars with the state transport authorities it cannot be said that the applicants are providing customer care service on behalf of the manufacturer.
 
In respect of the demand of Rs. 22,09,353/- the applicants are negotiating with the banks on behalf of the customers regarding car loan and where the banks agreed to give lower rate of interest the applicants foregone part of their commission. On this issue prima facie we find that the applicants are receiving commission from the banks and the applicants are foregoing part of commission in case where the bank agrees to reduce the rate of interest; the applicants had not made a case for waiver of pre-deposit of the dues.
 
Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicants are directed to deposit an amount of rupees ten lakhs only within eight weeks. On deposit of the above mentioned amount, pre-deposit of the balance amount of service tax, interest and penalties are waived.
 
Decision:- Part pre-deposit ordered.
 
Comment:-  The analogy drawn from this case is that the amount received from the car purchaser for registration of the cars with the state transport authorities does not indicates that the applicants are providing customer care service on behalf of the manufacturer. However, the applicants foregoing part of the commission receivable from the banks if banks granted loans at low rate of interest will be leviable to service tax under BAS as it amounts to promoting the business of bank by the appellant.
 
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