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/2014-15/2268

Private placement of shares falls under merchant Banking services.

Case:-  TRIUMPH INTERNATIONAL FINANCE INDIA LTD. VERSUS C.S.T MUMBAI-I

Citation:-2014(35) S.T.R.338 (Tri-Mumbai)

Brief facts:- The appellant was registered with SEBI under merchant bankers regulations, 1992 and provided some merchant banking services  for the private placement of equity shares against which 25 lac shares were allotted. The department was of the view that activity undertaken by the appellant is management consultancy services and therefore a notice was issued demanding service tax of Rs. 13,12,500/- along with interest thereon.

Appellant’s contention:- The learned consultant for the appellant submitted that the period of dispute involved in this case is January 2000. And by rendering the service of private placement of equity shares they have not undertaken any activities which come within the scope of management consultancy services. On the other hand these services come under merchant banking and other financial services wherein initially the levy was restricted on banking companies and NBFCS which is now extended to cover body corporates also. Hence services rendered by them fall under merchant banking services.

Respondent’s contention:-The respondent strongly refutes the contentions of the learned consultant and submits on the basis of board’s circular no. 1/1/2001 dated 27-6-2001 that management generally means running the affair of an organisation in an organised and systematic manner it encompasses both on strategic and operational level functioning and involves a wide variety of clearly defined activities across organisational sub-units. Management is an inclusive term and would include management consultant and any adviser who renders services on any aspect of management also the financial advisory services rendered in merger and acquisition transactions are clearly in the nature of services in connection with the management of an organisation.  
 
Reasoning of judgement:- The bench observed thatManagement consultancy service under clause(65) of section 65 of finance act means
management consultant” means any person who is engaged in providing any service, either directly or indirectly, in connection with the management of any organisation or business in any manner and includes any person who renders any advice, consultancy or technical assistance, in relation to conceptualising, devising, development ,modification, rectification or upgradation of any working systems of any organisation.
Merchant Banking and Other Financial Services under clause(12) of section 65 means
Any services provided in relation to such issue management either by making arrangements regarding selling buying or subscribing securities as manager, consultant, advisor or rendering corporate advisory services in relation to such issue management. This inter alia consists of preparation of prospectus and other information relating to the issue, determining financial structure, tie up of financiers and final allotment and refund of subscription for debt/equity issue management and acting as an advisor, consultant, co-manager, underwriter and portfolio manager it also includes advisory services on corporate restructuring, loan restructuring, debt or equity restructuring etc. fees charged by the merchant banker for rendering these services will be taxable value in respect of this service.
The learned consultant in his rejoinder submits that even if it is held that the activities undertaken by them would come under management consultancy services the demand would be hit by time bar so no malafide can be alleged against the appellant.
The appellant is registered as merchant banker under the SEBI regulations and also private placement of shares fall under the definition of merchant banking services as specified above therefore the confirmation of demand under management consultancy services is not sustainable under law.

Decision:-Appeal is allowed.

Comment:- The crux of this case was thatthe activity of private placement of shares falls under the defination of merchant banking services and not under category of management consultancy services.It was further concluded that since the period under consideration in appeal was from January, 2000 and merchant banking activities rendered by body corporate came under the tax net w.e.f august 2002, no service tax was leviable on merchant banking activity rendered by a body corporate for the period prior to August, 2002.

Prepared by: Shruti Bhandari
 

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