Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Dept. Can’t Classify Product as Zarda Scented Tobacco After Repeatedly Approving It As Chewing Tobacco: CESTAT *  Mere Uploading Of GST Order On Portal Is Not “Valid” Service: Tripura HC *  CGST Can Proceed Even If SGST Closed Similar Case Earlier: Delhi HC *  SC upholds 28% GST on online gaming with retrospective effect. *  West Bengal Govt cuts E-way Bill Threshold limit to Rs. 50,000 for intra-state goods movement. *  Criminal Prosecution Under Central Excise Act Can’t Continue After CESTAT Sets Aside Duty Demand on Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Orders for Denial of Personal Hearing; Remands Matter Subject to 10% Deposit *  Ex Parte GST Order: Madras High Court Directs Immediate Removal of Bank/ITC Attachment Upon 25% Deposit *  J.K. Cement Receives GST Demand Order of Rs 8,02,113/- from Ahmedabad Tax Authority *  Delhi Police EOW Busts Alleged Rs. 128 Crore GST Fake Invoice Network. *  REPLY TO SCN CAN’T BE TREATED AS “EMPTY FORMALITY”: ORISSA HIGH COURT QUASHES GST DEMAND OF RS. 57.30 LAKH *  Challenge to CGST Provisions restricting ITC to Bonafide Purchasers : Allahabad HC issues notice *  CBIC Notifies Revised Customs Tariff Values for Edible Oils, Gold, Silver, Brass Scrap and Areca Nuts *  Delhi HC Orders Removal of GST Attachment After Statutory 1 Year Period Expired *  GSTAT Extends Relaxed Appeal Filing Guidelines till December 31, 2026 *  AO fails to Provide Import - Export Data from DGFT to Taxpayer for Reconciliation *  Gold, Silver Imports To Get Costlier As Govt Raises Customs Duty To 10%  *  GSTAT Enables Pre-Payment Access to Document Upload and Checklist for GST Appeal Filing *  GST Portal Restrictions Can’t Override Statute: Gujarat HC Allows Cross-State Transfer Of CGST ITC After Amalgamation *  Centre Revises HS Codes for Large Diameter Steel Pipes Used in Oil & Gas Pipelines *  Customs Duty Liability Arises On Warehouse Clearance Date: Supreme Court *  Government lifts export ban on de-oiled rice bran *  CESTAT Grants 12% Interest on Pre-Deposit for Investigation from Date of Deposit till Refund and Denies Interest on Interest. *  Government Overhauls GST Classification Framework for Non-Alcoholic Beverages; Fruit Juice Drinks, Milk-Based Beverages and Caffeinated Drinks to Attract Revised 5% and 40% GST Rates from May 1, 2026 *  India’s gross GST collections hit a record Rs 2.42 lakh crore in April, up 8.7% *  Customs clearance stalled, revenue hit over MRP dispute *  Shipping Corporation explores Middle East routes as Hormuz tensions disrupt cargo movement *  India, Kenya signs MoU for exchange of pre-arrival customs information *  No demand of Taxes under Reverse Charge if Tax Already Discharged by Service Provider under forward charge *  The India-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement, signed "once-in-a-generation" deal that eliminates tariffs on 100% of Indian exports to New Zealand
Subject News *  Consignment Sales Can’t Be Reclassified as Inter-State Sales Based on Pre-Agreement Evidence: CESTAT *  Exporter Can’t Be Denied Advance Authorization Benefit Due To ICEGATE Technical Glitch: Delhi High Court *  No GST Demand For Mere Wrong Set-Off Of IGST Credit Under CGST And SGST Heads: Kerala HC. *  Cenvat Credit Can’t Be Denied on Input Services Having Nexus With Manufacturing Activities: CESTAT *  Pending Proceedings Can’t Survive Without Saving Clause: Calcutta High Court Quashes GST Demand of Rs. 6.28 Crore After Omission of Rule 96(10) *  Madras HC Quashes GST Demands on TASMAC (Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation) Bar Licence Fee *  GST Proceedings Cannot Survive Omitted Rule Without Saving Clause: Calcutta HC *  Provisional Release Can’t Be Denied Solely On Dept. Suspicion Of Misclassification And Undervaluation Of Imported Goods: CESTAT *  Businesses Should Not Be Kept Outside GST Regime Without Due Process: Gauhati High Court *  Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Reconsideration of Contractors’ Claim for Additional GST Payment After Tax Rate Hike From 12% to 18% *  S. 108 Statements Can’t Be Sole Basis Without Following Section 138B Procedure: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Frames Key Questions on Mandatory Distribution of ITC U/s 20 CGST Act *  Filing of Annexure-B for Refund Applications involving Accumulated ITC using the offline utility in GST portal: GSTN *  No Service Tax on Parent Company’s Un-Invoiced Cost Allocations Without Actual Service or Consideration: CESTAT  *  Calcutta High Court Upholds GST Classification of Polypropylene Leno Bags as Plastic Products *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  GSTAT Issues Major Bench Allocation Framework; All Appeals to First Go Before Division Bench *  ITC Blocking Without Reasoned Order Violates Rule 86A; Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Release of Credit *  Allahabad HC Refuses Bail to CGST Superintendent In Rs. 70 Lakh Bribery Case *  S.130 Can’t Be Invoked Without Prior Tax Determination U/s 73/74: Allahabad High Court Quashes GST Confiscation Proceedings *  SC grants Bail to Rs 54cr GST case  *  Karnataka HC Sets Aside Duplicate GST Orders, Orders Fresh Hearing on GSTIN Cancellation *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  Transfer Of Unutilized ITC After Amalgamation - Supreme Court Issues Notice *  PUNJAB & HARYANA HC QUASHES GST CANCELLATION NOTICE FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE CBIC ENQUIRY REPORT *  LICENSE FEE, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CHARGES NOT INCLUDIBLE IN CUSTOMS VALUE UNLESS THEY ARE A CONDITION OF SALE: CESTAT *  DELHI HC ORDERS REMOVAL OF GST ATTACHMENT AFTER STATUTORY 1 YEAR PERIOD EXPIRED *  CUSTOMS BROKER CAN’T BE FAULTED JUST BECAUSE EXPORTER’S GST REGISTRATION WAS PREVIOUSLY CANCELLED: CESTAT   *  Supreme Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Delhi HC Ruling Holding Real Operator Behind Fake GST Firms Liable As ‘Taxable Person  *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected Merely Because DRC-07 Was Not Uploaded On Portal: Bombay High Court  

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