Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Missing seized records must be considered while testing ITC claim; duplicate GST demands ordered corrected: Delhi High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be rejected without addressing taxpayer’s grounds: Allahabad High Court. *  Surplus IGST credit can offset CGST, SGST shortfall: GSTAT. *  GST refund can’t be denied when cancelled airfares are returned with tax: GSTAT. *  3 Hearing notices issued within 2 minutes: Gujarat High Court flags portal flaw, seeks report. *  GSTR-9, GSTR-9C filing for FY 2025-26 enabled; pending GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B must be filed first. *  Dupattas are exempt fabrics, can’t be taxed as fibres at 4%: Madras High Court. *  Full transitional credit allowed on capital goods received after GST rollout: GSTAT denies Rs. 6.99 lakh export duty credit. *  GST return mismatch alone can’t justify fraud proceedings: GSTAT orders fresh adjudication under section 73. *  Supplier found non-existent later can’t alone justify input tax credit denial: GSTAT. *  GST interest stops once tax reaches government account, can’t run until return filing: GSTAT. *  Cancelled flat booking- GST refund can’t be denied without excluding COVID period from limitation: GSTAT. *  India notifies rules of origin for India–New Zealand FTA. *  Incomplete E-bike kits classifiable as complete vehicles, but not eligible for CKD duty concession: CESTAT. *  Same GST rate on main input and output can’t by itself bar inverted duty refund: GSTAT. *  Unjust enrichment doesn’t apply to customs refunds from assessments finalised before July 13, 2006: Gujarat High Court. *  CENVAT credit can’t be denied solely because plant And machinery are embedded in earth: Karnataka High Court. *  DFIA exports ineligible for RoDTEP benefits; customs directs repayment with applicable interest. *  Second E-Way bill alone doesn’t prove another supply: GSTAT. *  Bail denied in Rs. 1.19 crore fake GST refund case over risk of accused absconding again: Punjab and Haryana High Court. *  GST registration can be restored after revocation deadline if outstanding dues are paid: Gauhati High Court. *  Multiple GST proceedings over same suppliers: Calcutta High Court directs dept. to share findings for adjudication. *  E-Governance portal services not OIDAR, fixed deposit interest not taxable: CESTAT. *  Rs. 500 Stamp duty required on authority letters for CAs, CMA and GST practitioners in Pune GST division.  *  Rs. 1.10 crore GST refund must be paid in cash after business closure: Allahabad High Court. *  Godown rent attracts 18% GST even when used exclusively for exempt agricultural warehousing: AAR. *  GST portal launches "Multi-State Registration" facility: one master TRN for registration applications across multiple States/UTs. *  RoDTEP scheme extended till 31st December, 2026.  *  Mere disagreement with order can’t override Rs. 20 lakh appeal limit: GSTAT. *  Customs interest can’t be backdated before confiscation liability is determined; nearly 8 year period excluded: Delhi High Court.
Subject News *  GST summons: anticipatory bail maintainable without arrest order, but relief denied in evasion case: Allahabad High Court. *  GST Appeal can’t be decided without hearing taxpayer’s objections to fresh evidence: Allahabad High Court. *  GST ITC can’t be reversed merely because supplier grants discount without reducing tax liability: GSTAT. *  Mere quoting of GST provision is not a valid charge: GSTAT quashes ITC denial. *  Personal hearing mandatory before adverse GST order, even without taxpayer’s request: Rajasthan High Court. *  Parallel bail pleas without full disclosure amount to abuse of process Rs. 43.08 crore GST case sent for fresh hearing: Supreme Court. *  GST refund based on unchallenged advance ruling can’t be recovered using later circular: GSTAT. *  Payment of GST alone doesn’t end interest and penalty liability when tax and interest remain unpaid beyond 30 days of notice: GSTAT. *  GST demand over builders’ 80% procurement rule requires reasoned adjudication: GSTAT. *  Eligible ITC doesn’t automatically entitle taxpayers to compensation cess refund on domestic sales: GSTAT. *  GST confiscation order passed before reply deadline invalid: GSTAT. *  GST interest can’t be retained after tax refund on delayed export receipts: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be dismissed over pre-deposit shortfall without opportunity To respond: Bombay High Court. *  DGGI SCN can’t be challenged before reply and adjudication:Chhattisgarh High Court. *  GST input tax credit can’t be denied solely due to supplier’s retrospective registration cancellation: GSTAT. *  GST notice must explain fraud allegations; merely repeating section 74 Is not enough:  Himachal Pradesh High Court. *  Audit detection alone can’t justify GST fraud penalty; specific suppression must be proved: GSTAT. *  GST order uploaded only under ‘Additional Notices’ tab without separate intimation set aside: Calcutta High Court. *  Service Tax appeal can’t be rejected for missing pre-deposit proof when payment is already recorded: CESTAT. *  SGST dept. can’t hear appeal against CGST order: Calcutta High Court. *  Mere dispatch of tax order can’t prove service or make appeal time-barred: CESTAT. *  Dealer incentives can’t be taxed merely on ledger entries: CESTAT. *  DGFT orders quashed for failure to supply DRI letter relied upon in SCN: Bombay High Court. *  GST penalty u/s 122(1A) can’t apply to Pre-2021 transactions; unregistered beneficiaries also covered: Delhi High Court. *  Expired E-way bill caused by wrong PIN code can’t justify GST penalty without intent to evade tax: GSTAT. *  Used railway rails can’t be taxed as track material without proof they are fit for reuse: CESTAT. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand on different issue: Delhi High Court. *  ITC dispute involves no question of law: GSTAT directs appeal to Vice-President. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand On different issue: Delhi High Court. *  No E-way bill required for interstate goods movement in november 2017: GSTAT quashes detention and penalty.  

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