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/2013-14/1606

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