Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Missing seized records must be considered while testing ITC claim; duplicate GST demands ordered corrected: Delhi High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be rejected without addressing taxpayer’s grounds: Allahabad High Court. *  Surplus IGST credit can offset CGST, SGST shortfall: GSTAT. *  GST refund can’t be denied when cancelled airfares are returned with tax: GSTAT. *  3 Hearing notices issued within 2 minutes: Gujarat High Court flags portal flaw, seeks report. *  GSTR-9, GSTR-9C filing for FY 2025-26 enabled; pending GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B must be filed first. *  Dupattas are exempt fabrics, can’t be taxed as fibres at 4%: Madras High Court. *  Full transitional credit allowed on capital goods received after GST rollout: GSTAT denies Rs. 6.99 lakh export duty credit. *  GST return mismatch alone can’t justify fraud proceedings: GSTAT orders fresh adjudication under section 73. *  Supplier found non-existent later can’t alone justify input tax credit denial: GSTAT. *  GST interest stops once tax reaches government account, can’t run until return filing: GSTAT. *  Cancelled flat booking- GST refund can’t be denied without excluding COVID period from limitation: GSTAT. *  India notifies rules of origin for India–New Zealand FTA. *  Incomplete E-bike kits classifiable as complete vehicles, but not eligible for CKD duty concession: CESTAT. *  Same GST rate on main input and output can’t by itself bar inverted duty refund: GSTAT. *  Unjust enrichment doesn’t apply to customs refunds from assessments finalised before July 13, 2006: Gujarat High Court. *  CENVAT credit can’t be denied solely because plant And machinery are embedded in earth: Karnataka High Court. *  DFIA exports ineligible for RoDTEP benefits; customs directs repayment with applicable interest. *  Second E-Way bill alone doesn’t prove another supply: GSTAT. *  Bail denied in Rs. 1.19 crore fake GST refund case over risk of accused absconding again: Punjab and Haryana High Court. *  GST registration can be restored after revocation deadline if outstanding dues are paid: Gauhati High Court. *  Multiple GST proceedings over same suppliers: Calcutta High Court directs dept. to share findings for adjudication. *  E-Governance portal services not OIDAR, fixed deposit interest not taxable: CESTAT. *  Rs. 500 Stamp duty required on authority letters for CAs, CMA and GST practitioners in Pune GST division.  *  Rs. 1.10 crore GST refund must be paid in cash after business closure: Allahabad High Court. *  Godown rent attracts 18% GST even when used exclusively for exempt agricultural warehousing: AAR. *  GST portal launches "Multi-State Registration" facility: one master TRN for registration applications across multiple States/UTs. *  RoDTEP scheme extended till 31st December, 2026.  *  Mere disagreement with order can’t override Rs. 20 lakh appeal limit: GSTAT. *  Customs interest can’t be backdated before confiscation liability is determined; nearly 8 year period excluded: Delhi High Court.
Subject News *  GST summons: anticipatory bail maintainable without arrest order, but relief denied in evasion case: Allahabad High Court. *  GST Appeal can’t be decided without hearing taxpayer’s objections to fresh evidence: Allahabad High Court. *  GST ITC can’t be reversed merely because supplier grants discount without reducing tax liability: GSTAT. *  Mere quoting of GST provision is not a valid charge: GSTAT quashes ITC denial. *  Personal hearing mandatory before adverse GST order, even without taxpayer’s request: Rajasthan High Court. *  Parallel bail pleas without full disclosure amount to abuse of process Rs. 43.08 crore GST case sent for fresh hearing: Supreme Court. *  GST refund based on unchallenged advance ruling can’t be recovered using later circular: GSTAT. *  Payment of GST alone doesn’t end interest and penalty liability when tax and interest remain unpaid beyond 30 days of notice: GSTAT. *  GST demand over builders’ 80% procurement rule requires reasoned adjudication: GSTAT. *  Eligible ITC doesn’t automatically entitle taxpayers to compensation cess refund on domestic sales: GSTAT. *  GST confiscation order passed before reply deadline invalid: GSTAT. *  GST interest can’t be retained after tax refund on delayed export receipts: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be dismissed over pre-deposit shortfall without opportunity To respond: Bombay High Court. *  DGGI SCN can’t be challenged before reply and adjudication:Chhattisgarh High Court. *  GST input tax credit can’t be denied solely due to supplier’s retrospective registration cancellation: GSTAT. *  GST notice must explain fraud allegations; merely repeating section 74 Is not enough:  Himachal Pradesh High Court. *  Audit detection alone can’t justify GST fraud penalty; specific suppression must be proved: GSTAT. *  GST order uploaded only under ‘Additional Notices’ tab without separate intimation set aside: Calcutta High Court. *  Service Tax appeal can’t be rejected for missing pre-deposit proof when payment is already recorded: CESTAT. *  SGST dept. can’t hear appeal against CGST order: Calcutta High Court. *  Mere dispatch of tax order can’t prove service or make appeal time-barred: CESTAT. *  Dealer incentives can’t be taxed merely on ledger entries: CESTAT. *  DGFT orders quashed for failure to supply DRI letter relied upon in SCN: Bombay High Court. *  GST penalty u/s 122(1A) can’t apply to Pre-2021 transactions; unregistered beneficiaries also covered: Delhi High Court. *  Expired E-way bill caused by wrong PIN code can’t justify GST penalty without intent to evade tax: GSTAT. *  Used railway rails can’t be taxed as track material without proof they are fit for reuse: CESTAT. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand on different issue: Delhi High Court. *  ITC dispute involves no question of law: GSTAT directs appeal to Vice-President. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand On different issue: Delhi High Court. *  No E-way bill required for interstate goods movement in november 2017: GSTAT quashes detention and penalty.  

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