Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  GST registration cancellation without reasons amounts to ‘Economic Death’ of business: Supreme Court. *  No GST refund if appeal before GSTAT is filed late: Gujarat High Court. *  Mere upload of GST notice on portal not valid service, appeal limitation won’t start: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Taxpayer can’t be penalised for missing notices hidden under ‘Additional Notices/Orders’: Calcutta High Court allows fresh adjudication. *  State tax officer can’t issue GST SCN beyond CBIC-assigned jurisdiction: Bombay High Court stays recovery proceedings. *  Earlier 7.5% Pre-Deposit must count towards mandatory 10% for Appeal: Uttarakhand high court quashes CESTAT Order. *  Third Parties can’t challenge GST Advance Rulings merely due to financial impact: Karnataka HC *  GST SCN generated using AI tool quashed: Punjab & Haryana High Court *  Bank Attachment Quashed as Madras HC Quashes GST Order Issued Against Deceased Person *  ITC Blocking Order for Failure to Record ‘Reason to Believe’ U/R 86A Quashed: Allahabad High Court *  Govt Extends GSTAT Appeal Filing Deadline From 30 June to July 31, 2026 *  GST Demand on RWA Stayed: Allahabad High Court Questions Taxability of Electricity Distribution to Flat Owners *  CBIC Clarifies Jurisdiction After GST Registration Transfer: Earlier Proceedings Remain Valid, New Officer to Continue Action *  GST authorities’ certification not mandatory for reimbursement, but tax payment must be proven: Karnataka HC *  Contractor can’t seek gst reimbursement through writ when contract has arbitration clause: Karnataka HC *  Unsigned Order Is No Order in Law: AP HC Quashes GST Assessment Order for Want of Officer’s Signature *  Customs Can’t Levy Rs. 1.36 Crore Cost Recovery Charges Without Proof of Full-Day Officer Deployment: CESTAT  *  12% IGST Payable On Imported Dialysis Machine Parts: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Admits Challenge to GST Limitation Extension Notifications; Grants Protection Against Coercive Recovery *  Criminal Case Can’t Run Parallel to GST Proceedings on Same Facts: Allahabad High Court *  Allahabad High Court Stays GST Detention Order; Directs Release of Vehicle and Goods on Deposit of Rs. 1.44 Lakh *  Service Tax Can’t Be Levied on Loss-Making Contracts: Gujarat High Court *  GSTN Mandates Ship-to GSTIN in e-Invoice and e-Way Bill APIs; Introduces Voluntary e-Way Bill Closure Facility from August 1, 2026 *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred When Taxpayer Was Pursuing Rectification Remedy: Telangana High Court *  Absence of E-Way Bill and Transport Documents Justifies Customs Seizure U/s 110: Gauhati HC *  Madras High Court Upholds GST Late Fee and Penalty for Non-Filing of Annual Return, Dismisses Challenge  *  GST Records, Purchase Documents Sufficient to Discharge Burden Under Customs Act: CESTAT Orders Release of 3.65 Kg Gold  *  No Sugar Cess Payable on Sugar Exported Out of India: CESTAT *  Road Construction Services Exempt and SCN Time-Barred: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Based Solely on Form 26AS  *  ITC Freeze Upheld After GST Dept Find Suppliers Were Allegedly Fake Bill-Trading Entities: Madras HC 
Subject News *  Input service benefits can’t be denied: CESTAT allows export refund despite MMTC acting as Canalising agency. *  No service tax demand without proof of service of SCN: CESTAT. *  Service tax demand quashed as dept. fails to prove service of SCN: CESTAT *  GST : Mere allegation of inadequate consideration of reply not enough to invoke writ jurisdiction: Delhi High Court *  Onerous conditions imposed for provisional release of seized imported goods shouldn’t amount to virtual denial of relief: CESTAT. *  GST SCN without alleging fraud cannot invoke sec. 74: Karnataka High Court quashes adjudication order. *  Extended Limitation Can’t Be Invoked Merely on Form 26AS Data: CESTAT *  Revenue-Sharing with Restaurants Not Taxable as Business Support Service: CESTAT *  R. 6(3) Option Can’t Be Forced on Taxpayer; CESTAT Quashes Rs. 12.36 Crore CENVAT Credit Demand *  Excise Duty | Power Consumption Alone Can’t Prove Clandestine Manufacture: Karnataka High Court *  Madras High Court Examines DGGI’s Authority to Issue GST Penalty Orders Under Section 122, Adds DGGI as Party *  Proceedings under omitted r. 96(10) can’t survive without saving clause: andhra pradesh high court quashes gst refund recovery *  Excise duty power consumption alone can’t prove clandestine manufacture: karnataka high court *  Madras high court rules GST show cause notices must disclose grounds for invoking extended limitation *  Court Can’t Direct Extension GST Return Deadlines or Waive Interest and Penalties: Karnataka High Court *  GST Notifications Can’t Go Beyond GST Council Recommendations: Madras High Court Quashes SCN on Branded Pulses *  Appeal Can’t Be Dismissed for Delay When Dept’s Own Order Mis-states Limitation Period: CESTAT *  No Evidence of KYC or Due Diligence Breach By Customs Broker: CESTAT Quashes Licence Revocation in Export Overvaluation Case *  Glucometers Are Chemical Analysis Instruments Classifiable Under Tariff Heading 9027: CESTAT *  Validity of Post-GST Service Tax Proceedings Upheld: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Challenge to S. 73 SCN *  Rectified GST Refund Applications Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred If Original Refund Claim Was Filed Within Limitation: Gujarat HC *  Service Tax Refund Can’t Be Denied as Time-Barred When Levy Itself Is Unconstitutional: Gujarat High Court *  Same Officer Can’t Act As Auditor & Adjudicator: Karnataka High Court *  Karnataka High Court Condones 324-Day Delay, Revives Customs Appeal in Jewellery Pilferage Case  *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Order Passed Ex Parte Despite Prior ITC Reversal; Lifts Bank Attachment *  Tobacco Process Doesn’t Amount to Manufacturing: Madras High Court Quashes Rs. 1.32 Crore Compensation Cess Demand  *  Recovery Notice Unsustainable After Voluntary Reversal of Unutilised Credit: CESTAT  *  GST | ‘System Generated’ SCN Without Officer Details Invalid: Allahabad HC  *  Electronic Records Without Statutory Certification Requirements Can’t Justify Undervaluation Allegations: CESTAT *  Madras High Court Stays GST Order, Finds Prima Facie Merit in Plea Against S. 74 Proceedings Based on S. 73 Intimation  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/CASE LAW/2015-16/2706

Whether assistance for selection of granite blocks and execution of export order is taxable as Management Consultancy Services?

Case :-PUSHKAR STEELS PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MEERUT-I
 
Citation:-2015 (38) S.T.R. 173 (Tri. - Del.)
 
Brief facts :-The appellants are manufacturers of M.S. Ingots. During scrutiny of their balance sheet in the financial year 1999-2000, it was noticed that they had shown income of Rs. 34,92,277/- as commission. On query with the appellant about the details of this commission, they explained that out of the said amount, an amount of Rs. 21,29,250/- was received from their customers for “marking selection of granite blocks” and the remaining amount of Rs. 13,19,977/- was received by them from their customers for “services rendered in executing export orders”. According to the department, both these activities of the appellants are Management Consultancy Services taxable under Section 65(105)(r) read with Section 65(65) of the Finance Act, 1994. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant for demand of Service Tax amounting to Rs. 1,72,162/- along with interest and also for imposition of penalty on them under Sections 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The above show cause notice was adjudicated by the Asstt. Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 1-1-2007 by which the above mentioned Service Tax demand was confirmed along with interest and besides this, penalties were imposed on the appellant under Sections 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. On appeal being filed to the Commissioner (Appeals) against this order, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order-in-appeal dated 31-10-2008 upheld the Asstt. Commissioner’s order. Against this order of the Commissioner (Appeals), this appeal has been filed.
 
Appellant’s contention :-Shri Alok Arora, Advocate, ld. Counsel for the appellant, pleaded that in terms of Section 65(105)(r), service provided to a client by a Management Consultant in connection with the management of any organization in any manner is taxable, that the term “Management Consultant” is defined under Section 65(65) as, “any person who is engaged in providing any service either directly or indirectly in connection with the management of any organization in any manner and includes any person who renders any advice, consultancy or technical assistance, relating to conceptualizing, devising, development, modification, rectification or upgradation of any working system of any organization” that in the present case, the department has not specified as to which organisation is the recipient of the alleged Management Consultancy/Advice provided by the appellant, that mere assisting individual clients for selecting the granite blocks, or helping them in executing the export orders does not constitute “Management Consultancy Service”, and that in view of the above, the impugned order is not sustainable.
 
Respondent’s contention :-Shri Pramod Kumar, ld. Joint CDR defended the impugned order by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals).

Reasoning of judgement :-The appellant are a manufacturer of M.S. Ingots and besides this, they have some other non-manufacturing activities which are helping in marking of granite blocks and rendering assistance in execution of the export orders and from these services, they earned income of Rs. 34,49,277/- during 1999-2000. According to the department, this activity of the appellant is “Management Consultant Service” as defined under Section 65(105)(r) read with Section 65(65) of the Finance Act, 1994.
Under Section 65(105)(r), service provided to a client by a management consultant in connection with the management of any organization, in any manner is taxable. The term “Management Consultant” is defined in Section 65(65) which is reproduced as under :-
“Management Consultant means any person who is engaged in providing any service, either directly or indirectly,in connection with the management of any organization in any manner and includes any person who renders any advice, consultancy or technical assistance, relating to conceptualizing, devising, development, modification, rectification or upgradation of any working system of any organization”.
In this case, the organization to whom Management Consultancy service is alleged to have been provided is not specified. Moreover, the service provided has to be in relation to the Management of an organization including advice, Consultancy or technical assistance for rectification or improvement of system of the organization. Mere helping a client in executing the export orders or in selecting granite blocks is not at all covered by the Management Consultancy Service, as there is no element of any consultancy with objective of management, rectification or improvement of the working system of an organization. The activity of the appellant therefore does not fall under Section 65(105)(r) read with Section 65(65). As such, the impugned order is not sustainable. The same is set aside. The appeal is allowed.
 
Decision :-Appeal allowed
 
Comment :- The gist of the case is that Management Consultant means any person who is engaged in providing any service, either directly or indirectly, in connection with the management of any organization in any manner and includes any person who renders any advice, consultancy or technical assistance, relating to conceptualizing, devising, development, modification, rectification or upgradation of any working system of any organization. There isno element of any consultancy with objective of management in the present case and further, the organization to whom Management Consultancy service is alleged to have been provided is also not specified. Therefore, it was concluded that mere marking of granite blocks and assistance in execution order is not taxable as Management Consultancy Services.

Prepared by :- Monika Tak
 

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