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 Laws/2011-12/1397

Computerization of billing system - whether classifiable under IT or BAS service

Case: COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., JAIPUR v/s GALAXY DATA PROCESSING CENTRE
 
Citation: 2011 (23) S.T.R. 375 (Tri- Del.)
 
Issue:- Computerization of bills using own developed software - Whether classifiable under Information Technology Services or under Business Auxiliary Services?
 
Brief Facts:- Respondent-M/s Galaxy Data Processors was given one order by Rajasthan State Electricity Board (RSEB) for computerization of energy billing and related MIS, relevant formats, performas and information. For carrying this order, the assessee developed and designed software, fed data into computer and processed such input data with the help of own developed software and generated 56 reports, including energy bills and other ad hoc reports as was required by RSEB. The charges paid by the RSEB included for all these works including for designing and development of software, and as per order, the software so developed by the assessee later on, became the property of the RSEB.
 
Respondent-M/s Business Information undertook work for M/s JVVNL and PHD in connection with preparation of energy bills and water bills.
 
Show cause notices were issued to the respondents alleging that the services rendered by them amounted to business auxiliary services and service tax was payable by them. Penalties were also sought to be imposed. The Original Authority confirmed the demand of service tax along with interest and equal amount of penalty under Section 78 against Respondent-M/s Galaxy Data Processors. In case of Respondent-M/s Business Information, the original Authority dropped proceedings against the appellant by holding that the service provided by them fell under Information technology service.
 
In appeal, the Commissioner (A) held that the service rendered by Respondent-M/s Galaxy Data Processors were in nature of information technology service which is not included under the category of business auxiliary service. And in the case of Respondent-M/s Business Information, the Commissioner (Appeal) revised the order and confirmed the demand of service tax with interest and also imposed penalties under Section 78 and Section 77.
 
Hence, the matter is before the Tribunal.
 
Respondent’s Contention:- The Assessee argued that they have merely undertaken Computer enabled service of data processing and generation of reports and bills and the same clearly come under the category of information technology services which are not covered under business auxiliary services for the period prior to 1.5.2006. The said service has been rendered after developing software as per the requirement of their customers. Further they submitted that they have not undertaken any service on behalf of their clients. Considering the nature of dispute, the invocation of extended period and imposition of penalties are not justified.
 
Further they relied on the following decisions, in support of their contentions:-
 
- Dataware Computers & Ors. V. CCE & CST (Appeals), Guntur reported in 2008 (87) RLT 325 (CESTAT-Bang)= 2008(12) S.T.R. 121 (Tribunal)
 
- CCE, Hyderabad v. Deloitte Tax Services India Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2008(11) S.T.R. 266 (Tri.-Bang)
 
- M/s. Cognizant Technology Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner, LTU, Chennai reported in 2010-TIOL-698-CESTAT-MAD=2010(18) S.T.R. 326 (Tri.-Chennai).
 
Reasoning of Judgment:- The Tribunal perused the definition of Business Auxiliary Service before its amendment on 01.05.2006 and after its amendment. The Tribunal noticed that the activities undertaken by the assessees include feeding the data provided by their clients in the computer net work system with the help of software specifically developed for the clients and generating the bills and delivering bills and other reports to the clients. The assessees have not undertaken any service on behalf of their clients as they do not have any contact with the customers of their clients. The work of data processing using custom made software deserves to be considered as Information Technology Services.
 
It was held that as during the period prior to 01.05.2006, the definition clearly excluded the Information Technology Services from the ambit of “Business auxiliary services, the activities undertaken by the assessees are not taxable under the category of “Business Auxiliary Services”.
 
Decision:- Appeals disposed off accordingly.

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