Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  The GSTN has issued an Advisory dated 21.04.2026 about the introduction of an Offline Tool for the Invoice Management System (IMS)  *  CBIC extends due dates for filing of FORM GSTR 3B  for the month of April 2026 *  Interest cannot be imposed in adjudication order, if not demanded/quantified in show cause notice : Allahabad HC *  Wheelchairs with toileting facility eligible for exemption: CESTAT affirms customs duty exemption to importer *  Industries urge GST council to allow inverted duty refunds on input services *  Tamil Nadu GST dept introduced virtual hearing facility for GST appeals under under section 107 of the TNGST act: detailed guidelines  *  CIC urges authorities to implement GST evasion complaint tracking system *  Even if the assessee opts "NO" for personal hearing in form DRC-06 ,The mandatory requirement under section 75(4) to grant opportunity of hearing cannot be waived:Gujarat High Court  *  Glufosinate imports curbs imposed by govt *  Government extends Re-import period for exported cut & polished diamonds *  CIC flags lack of tracking system for tax evasion complaints,urges GST authorities to improve transparency *  No Custodial Interrogation needed in GST fraud case based on documentary evidence already in Department's Possession : Chattisgarh HC *  Orders under section cannot be sustained if passed without considering the taxpayer's objections and without granting a personal hearing:Gujarat High Court *  Mere cancellation of supplier's registration cannot,by itself,justify denial of ITC or cancellation of the recipient's registration:Bombay High Court *  High Court sets aside GST notice citing factual errors and natural justice violations *  Provisional Bank Attachment under Section. 110 of Customs Act Unsustainable Beyond Statutory period without Extension order: Bombay HC orders to defreeze accounts *  Post Clearance MRP Alteration by Distributor Does not attract Differential Customs Duty: CESTAT *  DGFT Expands scope of 'Screws' classification under RoDTEP Scheme  *  E-way bills surze to all time high of 140.6 million in March *  GST Exemption Allowed on Pure Labour Services for Standalone Houses: AAR  *  GST Payable Only on Margin in Second-Hand Car Sales, Subject to Strict Conditions and No ITC Claim: AAR *  DGFT rolls out procedure for allocation of calcined coke *  GST portal update : Pre-deposit amount now editable in Appeals *  J&K HC declared TMT scrap a 'Specified Good' eligibile for GST refunds under Support Scheme  *  Pigmy agents are employees of banks; no GST can be levied on commission  paid to them : Karnataka HC *  DGFT Revises HS Code Description for Screws Under RoDTEP *  GST Registration Cancellation Invalid Without Proper Service of Notice: Allahabad High Court. *  Bengaluru CGST | GST Backlog Appeals Deadline Fixed at June 30, 2026 *  No Time Bar on Refund of Service Tax for Services Not Rendered: CESTAT  Remands Indiabulls Case for Unjust Enrichment Check. *  Supreme Court Holds Renewable Energy Incentive Must Benefit Generators, Not Be Adjusted in Tariff
Subject News *   Delhi HC Quashes Order, Says Reminder Cannot Validate Improperly Served GST SCN *  KARNATAKA HIGH COURT REMANDS GST SHORTFALL MATTER DUE TO ABSENCE OF PERSONAL HEARING   *  CESTAT cancels confiscation and penalties on imported computer cabinet cases: Custom duty restricted to 111 surplus units *  Deposit of tax during search or investigation cannot be treated as 'Voluntary Payment' : Bombay High Court *  Section 76 of the CGST cannot be invoked where the tax has already been duly deposited, even if through another registration of the same entity: Madras High Court *  Sec 74 allows use of material regardless of source; illegality or flaws in section 67 search do not vitiate valid adjudication: HC *  Inter-State transfer of ITC on Amalgamation permissible as given under section 18(3) read with rule 41 of the CGST rules, 2017: Gujarat High Court *  HC: No GST on commisson paid to Pigmy Agents *  IGST refund denial on illegible bill of lading invalid absent chance to furnish docs; merit reconsideration in appeals directed: HC *  ITC is not admissible on GST paid on leasehold rights of land used fpr setting up an air seperation plant: AAAR,Tamil Nadu *  GST: No penalty under Section 74 after voluntary ITC reversal due to non-existent supplier : High Court *  TN AAAR denies GST ITC on Land Lease under Sec. 17(5)(d) for setting up plant and machinery *  GST proceedings quashed as notices sent to old address, despite updated address in registration *  Importer Can’t Be Penalised for Alleged IGCR Procedural Lapses Without Evidence of Departmental Error: CESTAT *  Structured Healthcare Training Not ‘Charitable Activity’, 18% GST Payable: AAR  *  CESTAT As The Appellate Authority For Central Sales Tax Disputes: A Paradigm Shift Under Finance Act, 2023 *   Rs. 25K Cost Imposed On SGST Joint Commissioner for Attaching Bank  Accounts Without Forming Mandatory “Opinion”: Bombay HC *   Ex-Parte GST Order Without Hearing Violates Natural Justice: Karnataka  High Court Quashes Adjudication and Bank Attachment.  *   Retrospective GST Cancellation Can’t Invalidate Genuine Transactions:  Jaipur Commissioner (Appeals) Quashes Rs. 95,670 ITC Demand. *   GST Pre-Deposit Non-Compliance: Allahabad High Court Allows Appeal  Subject to Rs. 30 Lakh Balance Deposit, Recognises Offline Filing. *  Documentary Nature of Evidence: Allahabad High Court Grants Bail in Rs. 32.66 Crore Fake ITC Fraud Case *  Supreme Court Flags Systemic Bias in Army’s Permanent Commission Process for Women Officers *  Re-Determination of Land Compensation Can Be Based on Appellate Court Awards, Clarifies Scope of S. 28-A: Supreme Court. *  Supreme Court Imposes Rs. 5 Lakh Costs On Rent Authority Officer For Acting Beyond Jurisdiction. *  DGGI Meerut | Court Denies Bail to Accused in Claiming Fake ITC And Export Refunds *  Denial of GST Rate Revision Benefit to Contractor Violates Article 14: Rajasthan HC *  GST Registration Cancellation for Non-Filing of Returns: Gauhati High Court Directs Restoration on Compliance. *   Supreme Court Quashes FEMA Adjudication Orders, Revives Proceedings at  Show Cause Stage. *   Higher Rank, Harsher Punishment Justified: Supreme Court Restores Dismissal  of Bank Manager in Misappropriation Case. *   Limitation for Export Refund to Be Counted from Foreign Exchange Realisation,  Not From Export Invoices Issuance: CESTAT  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/Case Laws/2011-12/1285

Value of SIM cards - whether service tax leviable or sales tax?

Case: Idea Mobile Communication Ltd v/s Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Cochin 

Citation: 2011-TIOL-71-SC-ST
 
Issue:Whether value of SIM cards sold by assessee to their mobile subscribers is to be included in taxable service under Section 65 (105) zzzx of the Finance Act, 1994, which provides for levy of service tax on telecommunication service or whether it is taxable as sale of goods under the Sales Tax Act?
 
Brief Facts:- During the relevant assessment years, i.e., 1997-1999, the appellant was selling SIM cards to its franchisees and was paying sales tax to the State Exchequer and activating the SIM card in the hands of its subscribers on a valuable consideration and paying service tax only on the activation charges. Department of Sales Tax, State of Kerala, included the activation charges as part of the sale consideration of SIM cards on the ground that activation is nothing but a value addition of the "goods" and thus comes under the definition of "goods" under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 and accordingly levied sales tax on activation charges.
 
Central Excise Department contended that a mere SIM card without activation is of no use and held that the appellant is liable to pay service tax on the value of SIM card also.
 
Appellant filed appeal before the respective appellate authorities under the KGST Act and Central Excise Act, 1944. Recovery proceedings against the appellant were initiated. Appellant filed Writ Petition in the High Court challenging the levy of service tax on the sale price of SIM cards and also challenging the levy of sales tax on the amounts recovered by the appellant by way of activation charges from its customers. Writ Petition was dismissed vide order dated 15.02.2002. Appellant filed appeals before the Supreme Court.
 
Based on the judgment of the High Court dated 15.02.2002, the appellant also filed appeal before the Tribunal, which was dismissed vide order dated 08.04.2003. Appellant preferred appeal u/s 35B of Central Excise Act, 1944 before the Tribunal. Appeal against the order dated 08.04.2003, in which the appellant did not challenge the levy of sales tax as the same was already paid.
 
The aforesaid Civil Appeal before the High Court was heard and decided with appeals and Writ Petitions of several other telecom operators, including BSNL, BPL etc. and vide judgment reported as BSNL vs.Union of India reported in (2006) 3 SCC 1, thematter was remanded to the Sales Tax Authorities concerned for determination of issue relating to SIM cards.
 
The Tribunal in the pending Appeal, vide order dated 25.05.2006, held that the levy of service tax in the case is not sustainable.
 
Aggrieved thereby, the Revenue challenged the order of the Tribunal dated 25.05.2006 before the High Court. The High Court vide order dated 04.09.2008 allowed the appeal of the Revenue against which this appeal has been filed before the Supreme Court.
 
Appellant’s Contention: - Appellant submitted that they were charging from its subscribers Rs. 1,000/- towards sales tax and Rs. 1,200/- as service tax upon activation of the SIM Card and that since they were selling the SIM Cards, therefore, at that point of time, they were charging Rs. 1000/- towards sales tax and for activating the SIM Card they were charging Rs. 1200/- as service tax. Appellant relied upon the earlier judgment rendered by the High Court as against which the Supreme Court pronounced the Judgment being BSNL vs. Union of India reported in (2006) 3 SCC 1.
 
Respondent’s Contention:- Revenue submitted that SIM Card has no intrinsic sale value and it is supplied to customers to provide telephone service. Selling of the SIM Card and the process of activation are "services" provided by the mobile cellular telephone companies to the subscriber.
 
Respondent further submitted that the decision of the Supreme Court has clearly stated that if the sale of a SIM Card is merely incidental to the service being provided and it only facilitates the identification of the subscribers, their credit and other details, it would be assessable to service tax.
 
Reasoning of the Judgment: - The Supreme Court observed that a SIM Card or Subscriber Identity Module is a portable memory chip used in cellular telephones. It is a tiny encoded circuit board which is fitted into cell phones at the time of signing on as a subscriber. The SIM Card holds the details of the subscriber, security data and memory to store personal numbers and it stores information which helps the network service provider to recognize the caller. It was noted that the High Court had occasion to deal with the aforesaid issue and in that context in its Judgment pronounced on 15th February, 2002 in Escotel Mobile Communications Ltd. vs. Union of India and Others, reported in (2002) Vol. 126 STC  475  (Kerala)it was held that a transaction of selling of SIM card to the subscriber is also a part of the “service” rendered by the service provider to the subscriber. The High Court had held that on the aspect of “service” rendered, the Parliament was competent under Article 248 read with entry 97 of List-I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution to impose tax. 
 
It was noted by the Supreme Court that later on the said Escotel Mobile Communications Ltd. merged with the appellant company i.e. M/s. Idea Mobile Communication Ltd. The aforesaid decision of the High Court was under challenge in this Court in the case of BSNL vs. Union of India reported in (2006) 3 SCC 1. The Supreme Courthad held that it was required to be seen on facts that whether SIM card was sold as a separate entity or as part of the services rendered by the service provider. Reliance was placed on Federation of Hotel & Restaurant Assn. of India v/s Union of India [2002-TIOL-699-SC-MISC]. It was noted that the matter was remanded to the sales Tax Authorities for determining the issue relating to SIM cards in the light of the observations made in that judgment. It was noted that the matter was again before the Tribunal wherein it was held that the levy of service tax as demanded is not sustainable for the reason that the assessee had already paid the sales tax and therefore it follows that service tax is not leviable on the item on which sales tax has been collected.
 
In further appeal before the High Court by the Department, it was held that service tax is payable inasmuch as SIM card has no intrinsic sale value and it is supplied to the customers for providing mobile service to them. Cogent reasons were given for holding so.
 
It was noted that the sales tax authorities have themselves conceded the position before the High Court that no assessment of sales tax would be made on the sale value of the SIM card supplied by the appellant to their customers irrespective of the fact whether they have filed returns and remitted tax or not. It was noted that even if sales tax was paid by mistake or remitted wrongly, it would not absolve them from the responsibility of paying service tax if there is a liability to pay the same. It was held that the charges paid by the subscribers for procuring a SIM card are generally processing charges for activating the cellular phone and consequently the same would necessarily be included in the value of the SIM card. 
 
It was held that there cannot be any dispute to the aforesaid position as the appellant itself subsequently has been paying service tax for the entire collection as processing charges for activating cellular phone and paying the service tax on the activation. The appellant also accepts the position that activation is a taxable service. The position in law is therefore clear that the amount received by the cellular telephone company from its subscribers towards SIM Card will form part of the taxable value for levy of service tax, for the SIM Cards are never sold as goods independent from services provided. They are considered part and parcel of the services provided and the dominant position of the transaction is to provide services and not to sell the material i.e. SIM Cards which on its own but without the service would hardly have any value at all. Thus, it is established from the records and facts of this case that the value of SIM cards forms part of the activation charges as no activation is possible without a valid functioning of SIM card and the value of the taxable service is calculated on the gross total amount received by the operator from the subscribers. The Sales Tax authority understood the aforesaid position that no element of sale is involved in the present transaction.
 
Decision:- Appeal dismissed.
 
Comments:- The above decision of supreme court must finally settle the issue that on the sale of sim card service tax is payable, since SIM Card has no intrinsic sale value and it is supplied to the customers for providing mobile service to them. Also, the dominant part of the transaction is providing service and not sale. This will have very high liability on all the mobile service provider as well as their distributors.
 
 

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