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/2010-11/1103

Whether assessee obtaining orders for principal before 2005 is C&F agent or Del credere agent

Case: Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore v/s N.K Agencies Pvt. Ltd
 
Citation: 2010 (20) S.T.R 176 (Kar.)
 
Issue:- Assessee obtaining orders for principal and marketing of goods during 01.10.1999 to 30.09.2004 prior to amendment in definition of BAS in 2005 – whether C&F agent or Del credere agent?
 
Brief Facts:- Respondents had entered in to an agreement with M/s Reliance Industries Ltd (RIL) on certain terms and conditions.  The respondent had obtained orders from the customers and passed them on to RIL and goods were directly dispatched to the customers from the factory of RIL. The respondent had received commission for rendering the above services.
 
According to Revenue, the services rendered by the respondent fell under the category of Clearing and Forwarding Agent Services and was therefore taxable under the provision of Service Tax. Revenue issued show cause notice to the respondent and also corrigendum contending that service tax was liable in respect of the services rendered by the respondent.
 
Respondent replied that they were not liable to pay the service tax or interest and penalty. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand of service tax and also imposed penalty.
 
In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeal) set aside the order of the Adjudicating Authority. Aggrieved by the said order, Revenue went in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by its order rejected the appeal. Against the order of the Tribunal, present appeal has been preferred before the High Court. Following questions of law have been raised:
 
1)         Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the activity of the respondent cannot be brought within scope of taxable services, viz, “Clearing and Forwarding Agent Services” as defined under Finance Act, 1994?
 
2)         Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in allowing the Appeal relying on a judgment made in M/s Raja Rajeshwari International Polymers Pvt. Ltd v/s CCE [2006 (3) STR 561 (Tribunal)], inspite of the fact that it has not reached its finality and pending before this Hon’ble Court in CEA. No. 41/2006?
 
3)         Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the services rendered by the respondent does not fall under the category of Clearing and Forwarding Agents inspite of the fact that Circulars stated otherwise?
 
Reasoning of Judgment:- Reference was made to the judgments given in Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore v/s Sreenidhi Polymers (P) Limited [2010 (18) STR 385 (Kar)] and in CST, Bangalore v/s Raja Rajeshwari International Polymers (P) Limited [2010 (18) STR 390 (Kar)] wherein the question of laws which are identical to the issues raised in the present appeal were answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.
 
The High Court perused the definitions of “clearing and forwarding agent” and the meaning of ‘Del Credere Agent’ and the amendment brought about in the year 2005, whereby a del credere agent is included in the category of business auxiliary service prior to the said amendment could not have been brought within the scope of the definition of “clearing and forwarding agent” under the Finance Act.
 
It was held that in the instant case, the respondent who rendered service was not a clearing and forwarding agent for RIL and that he was a del credere agent and he was not liable to pay any service tax. It was held that this was apparent from the terms and conditions of the agreement entered between respondent and RIL.
 
It was held that as the period in question was from 01.10.1999 to 30.09.2004 which was prior to the amendment of “Business Auxiliary Service” which is w.e.f. 16.06.2005. Therefore, following the judgments relied upon, the question answered in favour of assessee and against the Revenue.
 
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