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/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