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 Laws/2011-12/1528

Service Tax on Free After sales services by Authorized Service Station

Case:  CCE, MEERUT-I v/s M/s SHAKUMBARI AUTOMOBILES PVT LTD
 
Citation: 2012-TIOL-127-CESTAT-DEL
 
Issue:- Whether Authorized service station providing free after sale service are liable to pay service tax when said service provided to boost sale of vehicles and the amounts were not reimbursed by the manufacturer?
 
Brief Facts:- Respondents are authorized Maruti dealer engaged in selling the vehicles of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. and are their authorized service station. They are also engaged in providing after sale service to the customer. In the present scenarios, more free services are being provided to boost the sale. When the appellants sold the cars and recovered the amount including the dealer's margin, the dominant intent was, to sell the goods, namely cars and not to provide free after sales services.
 
Appellant’s Contention:- The appellant contended that as regards the charges paid by the seller of car to other authorized service station, where the car was serviced under three free services as per the norms fixed by Maruti Udyog Ltd., these are part of the sale value of car and for the service provided.
 
Reasoning of Judgment:- The Tribunal held that there is no evidence to substantiate the allegation that either Maruti Udyog ltd. has reimbursed the authorized service station/dealer or there is any evidence to show that the sale price of the vehicle includes the free service charges. It is a common phenomenon in the sale of vehicles that to promote sales of vehicles, three free services are provided for which customer does not pay any charges. In the present scenarios, more free services are being provided to boost the sale. When the appellants sold the cars and recovered the amount including the dealer's margin, the dominant intent was, to sell the goods, namely cars and not to provide free after sales services. The entire amount including the dealer's margin has been rightly taxed to sales tax representing the value of cars. The provision of free servicing is merely incidental and intended to promote the sale of cars. Therefore, no service tax can be levied on the amount of representing the dealer's margin or any part of it, which already had been subjected sales tax. The case law M/s.ASL Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Patna, 2008-TIOL-114-CESTAT-KOL also support the said stand. As regards the charges paid by the seller of car to other authorized service station, where the car was serviced under three free services as per the norms fixed by Maruti Udyog Ltd., the appellants have contested on the ground that these are part of the sale value of car and for the service provided. The plea made appears to be correct in view of the fact that when free services are provided by the dealer who is also authorized service station, no reimbursement is made to the dealer. In case when free service is provided by the other authorized service station, then seller pays to the other authorized service provider a nominal amount of its sales margin as fixed by Maruti Udyog Ltd. The said mechanism has been floated by the Maruti Udyog Ltd. to have a uniform policy among the dealers keeping the customers to have a facility to get such free services at any of the nearest dealer instead of approaching the dealer from whom they purchased the vehicle. The final amount paid by the customer does not vary whether or not customer avails free services provided by the dealer as a part of the sales transaction. And the amount so given out of the sales value on which sales tax has been given, cannot be subjected to service tax. [Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs.UOI (SC)]. The said judgment was followed by Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of M/s. Idea Mobile Communications Ltd. vs. CCE, Trivandrum, 2006 (4) STR 132 (Tri.-Bang.) = (2006- TIOL-857-CESTAT-BANG).
 
Further the Tribunal found that the issue is no more res integra and stands settled by various decisions of the Tribunal. In the case of M/s.ASL Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Patna, 2008 (9) STR (356) (Tri.) = (2008-TIOL-114-CESTAT-KOL), an identical dispute was resolved in favour of the assessee. It was held that free after sale services are provided to boost the sale of the vehicles and the amounts are not being reimbursed by the manufacturers. Amount of free service formed part of dealer's margin and no extra amount is being paid to the dealer by the manufacturer of the vehicles. They observed that the provision of free service are merely incidental and intended to promote sale of cars and cannot be subjected to service tax. Similarly, in the case of Kiran Motors Ltd. vs. CCE, Vadodara-2009 (16) STR 74 (Tri.-Ammd.) = (2009-TIOL-770-CESTAT-AHM), it was observed that the buyer is entitled to three free after sale service and there is no provision for refund or rebate in case such free services are not availed by the buyer. As far as the purchaser of the vehicles are concerned, it is indivisible contract and the component of free services cannot be segregated. It was observed that if the contract can be segregated, the purchaser would have been able to get services from any dealer he wanted and not necessarily from the dealer of Maruti Udyog Ltd only and could claim or rebate in respect of free services which was availed by the dealer of Maruti Udyog Ltd. Similarly, the services provided by the dealer, who had not actually sold the vehicle, cannot be held liable to service tax, even if the cost of free sale service stands reimbursed by another dealer who had actually sold the vehicles.
 
Decision:- Appeal dismissed.

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