Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Dept. Can’t Classify Product as Zarda Scented Tobacco After Repeatedly Approving It As Chewing Tobacco: CESTAT *  Mere Uploading Of GST Order On Portal Is Not “Valid” Service: Tripura HC *  CGST Can Proceed Even If SGST Closed Similar Case Earlier: Delhi HC *  SC upholds 28% GST on online gaming with retrospective effect. *  West Bengal Govt cuts E-way Bill Threshold limit to Rs. 50,000 for intra-state goods movement. *  Criminal Prosecution Under Central Excise Act Can’t Continue After CESTAT Sets Aside Duty Demand on Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Orders for Denial of Personal Hearing; Remands Matter Subject to 10% Deposit *  Ex Parte GST Order: Madras High Court Directs Immediate Removal of Bank/ITC Attachment Upon 25% Deposit *  J.K. Cement Receives GST Demand Order of Rs 8,02,113/- from Ahmedabad Tax Authority *  Delhi Police EOW Busts Alleged Rs. 128 Crore GST Fake Invoice Network. *  REPLY TO SCN CAN’T BE TREATED AS “EMPTY FORMALITY”: ORISSA HIGH COURT QUASHES GST DEMAND OF RS. 57.30 LAKH *  Challenge to CGST Provisions restricting ITC to Bonafide Purchasers : Allahabad HC issues notice *  CBIC Notifies Revised Customs Tariff Values for Edible Oils, Gold, Silver, Brass Scrap and Areca Nuts *  Delhi HC Orders Removal of GST Attachment After Statutory 1 Year Period Expired *  GSTAT Extends Relaxed Appeal Filing Guidelines till December 31, 2026 *  AO fails to Provide Import - Export Data from DGFT to Taxpayer for Reconciliation *  Gold, Silver Imports To Get Costlier As Govt Raises Customs Duty To 10%  *  GSTAT Enables Pre-Payment Access to Document Upload and Checklist for GST Appeal Filing *  GST Portal Restrictions Can’t Override Statute: Gujarat HC Allows Cross-State Transfer Of CGST ITC After Amalgamation *  Centre Revises HS Codes for Large Diameter Steel Pipes Used in Oil & Gas Pipelines *  Customs Duty Liability Arises On Warehouse Clearance Date: Supreme Court *  Government lifts export ban on de-oiled rice bran *  CESTAT Grants 12% Interest on Pre-Deposit for Investigation from Date of Deposit till Refund and Denies Interest on Interest. *  Government Overhauls GST Classification Framework for Non-Alcoholic Beverages; Fruit Juice Drinks, Milk-Based Beverages and Caffeinated Drinks to Attract Revised 5% and 40% GST Rates from May 1, 2026 *  India’s gross GST collections hit a record Rs 2.42 lakh crore in April, up 8.7% *  Customs clearance stalled, revenue hit over MRP dispute *  Shipping Corporation explores Middle East routes as Hormuz tensions disrupt cargo movement *  India, Kenya signs MoU for exchange of pre-arrival customs information *  No demand of Taxes under Reverse Charge if Tax Already Discharged by Service Provider under forward charge *  The India-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement, signed "once-in-a-generation" deal that eliminates tariffs on 100% of Indian exports to New Zealand
Subject News *  Consignment Sales Can’t Be Reclassified as Inter-State Sales Based on Pre-Agreement Evidence: CESTAT *  Exporter Can’t Be Denied Advance Authorization Benefit Due To ICEGATE Technical Glitch: Delhi High Court *  No GST Demand For Mere Wrong Set-Off Of IGST Credit Under CGST And SGST Heads: Kerala HC. *  Cenvat Credit Can’t Be Denied on Input Services Having Nexus With Manufacturing Activities: CESTAT *  Pending Proceedings Can’t Survive Without Saving Clause: Calcutta High Court Quashes GST Demand of Rs. 6.28 Crore After Omission of Rule 96(10) *  Madras HC Quashes GST Demands on TASMAC (Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation) Bar Licence Fee *  GST Proceedings Cannot Survive Omitted Rule Without Saving Clause: Calcutta HC *  Provisional Release Can’t Be Denied Solely On Dept. Suspicion Of Misclassification And Undervaluation Of Imported Goods: CESTAT *  Businesses Should Not Be Kept Outside GST Regime Without Due Process: Gauhati High Court *  Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Reconsideration of Contractors’ Claim for Additional GST Payment After Tax Rate Hike From 12% to 18% *  S. 108 Statements Can’t Be Sole Basis Without Following Section 138B Procedure: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Frames Key Questions on Mandatory Distribution of ITC U/s 20 CGST Act *  Filing of Annexure-B for Refund Applications involving Accumulated ITC using the offline utility in GST portal: GSTN *  No Service Tax on Parent Company’s Un-Invoiced Cost Allocations Without Actual Service or Consideration: CESTAT  *  Calcutta High Court Upholds GST Classification of Polypropylene Leno Bags as Plastic Products *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  GSTAT Issues Major Bench Allocation Framework; All Appeals to First Go Before Division Bench *  ITC Blocking Without Reasoned Order Violates Rule 86A; Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Release of Credit *  Allahabad HC Refuses Bail to CGST Superintendent In Rs. 70 Lakh Bribery Case *  S.130 Can’t Be Invoked Without Prior Tax Determination U/s 73/74: Allahabad High Court Quashes GST Confiscation Proceedings *  SC grants Bail to Rs 54cr GST case  *  Karnataka HC Sets Aside Duplicate GST Orders, Orders Fresh Hearing on GSTIN Cancellation *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  Transfer Of Unutilized ITC After Amalgamation - Supreme Court Issues Notice *  PUNJAB & HARYANA HC QUASHES GST CANCELLATION NOTICE FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE CBIC ENQUIRY REPORT *  LICENSE FEE, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CHARGES NOT INCLUDIBLE IN CUSTOMS VALUE UNLESS THEY ARE A CONDITION OF SALE: CESTAT *  DELHI HC ORDERS REMOVAL OF GST ATTACHMENT AFTER STATUTORY 1 YEAR PERIOD EXPIRED *  CUSTOMS BROKER CAN’T BE FAULTED JUST BECAUSE EXPORTER’S GST REGISTRATION WAS PREVIOUSLY CANCELLED: CESTAT   *  Supreme Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Delhi HC Ruling Holding Real Operator Behind Fake GST Firms Liable As ‘Taxable Person  *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected Merely Because DRC-07 Was Not Uploaded On Portal: Bombay High Court  

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