Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Service tax penalty can’t survive when assessee acted on dept.’s own view of non-taxability: Delhi High Court. *  GST section 74 extended limitation questionable when form 26AS mismatch was already known: Karnataka High Court grants interim relief. *  CGST demand prima facie impermissible after state GST settlement under section 128A: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court asks GSTAT to sympathetically consider delay as taxpayers pursued remedy before wrong forum. *  Supreme Court stays Tripura High Court ruling protecting genuine buyers from ITC denial over supplier’s GST default. *  Diary entries alone can’t prove clandestine removal of goods: CESTAT quashes excise penalty on steel trader. *  Customs could investigate preferential tariff claims even before sec. 28DA: Delhi High Court. *  Customs dept. relied on fake AI generated case laws: supreme court quashes Rs. 425.28 crore penalty. *  No GST exemption in affiliation and annual registration charges for admission or conduct Of examinations: GSTAT. *  Mere invoices, cheque payments insufficient to establish genuine movement of goods: GSTAT restores Rs. 43.44 lakh ITC demand. *  Consolidated GST show cause notice covering multiple financial years is not without jurisdiction: Delhi High Court. *  Construction of independent houses on separate plots not taxable as ‘Residential Complex’ without common facilities: CESTAT. *  GST penalty exceeding statutory maximum unsustainable; Allahabad High Court quashes ? 50,000/- penalty after taxpayer filed return and paid late fee. *  GST order against standard chartered bank passed without hearing set aside by Bombay High Court. *  Retracted statements can’t be relied upon without cross-examination: CESTAT quashes gold confiscation. *  Burden to prove misclassification lies on customs department: CESTAT. *  CESTAT quashes Rs. 98 lakh excise demand on clearance of used refractory brick scrap. *  Service tax demand on irrigation works quashed: Karnataka High Court rules sale of goods component not taxable as service. *  GSTAT restores tax and penalty for transporting iron scrap without E-way bill citing intent to evade tax. *  Madras High Court stays GST recovery from directors without opportunity to show cause under section 89. *  Madras high court stays GST recovery notice against directors; finds prima facie case on applicability of section 79(1)(c). *  Procedural lapses can’t justify harsh punishment without serious customs breach: CESTAT quashes customs broker licence revocation. *  Service tax payable on land leasing and sports complex charges: CESTAT. *  Settled customs dispute can’t be reopened through Article 226 challenge to interest liability: Delhi High Court. *  Mere facilitation of customs clearance can’t establish knowledge of smuggling: Madras High Court. *  GST registration cancellation stayed: Allahabad High Court questions 99% ITC utilisation cap under rule 86B. *  Composition scheme lapses automatically on crossing Rs. 1.5 crore turnover: GSTAT. *  Gujarat High Court quashes GST cancellation orders after officer relied on non-existent AI-generated case laws. *  Importers liable for customs duty benefits availed through manipulated scrips: Delhi High Court. *  Procedural E-way bill lapse alone can’t justify penalty where genuine transaction and absence of tax evasion are established: GSTAT.
Subject News *  Documentary evidence dominates probe, further custody unwarranted: mumbai court grants bail in Rs. 22.44 crore customs duty evasion case. *  Business premises can’t remain sealed for non-participation in GST search: Allahabad High Court. *  GST pre-deposit must be refunded proportionately when taxpayer partly succeeds in appeal: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court grants 30 days to file GST appeal; keeps pre-deposit issue open due to deposit in parallel CGST proceedings. *  GST demand can’t exceed amount proposed in SCN: Allahabad High Court quashes Rs. 20.47 Crore order. *  Hundreds-of-crores GST demand and heavy 10% pre-deposit no ground to bypass statutory appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Delhi High Court refuses to entertain challenge to gold confiscation due to statutory appeal remedy and unexplained delay. *  Procedural error in customs broker licence inquiry can be rectified through remand: Delhi High Court. *  GSTR-2A mismatch alone can’t justify ITC denial without invoice-wise verification; personal hearing mandatory: GSTAT. *  GST order passed without uploading personal hearing notices violates sec. 75(4): Allahabad High Court. *  TAX EVASION - Sec. 74 GST SCN quashed for not spelling out fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression: Allahabad High Court. *  STPI’s SOFTEX certification and NoC charges taxable as business support services: CESTAT. *  Suspicion can’t replace proof: CESTAT quashes penalty in alleged gold-smuggling operation. *   Limitation runs from communication of order: Madras High Court upholds rejection of delayed GST Appeals. *  Rajasthan High Court quashes GST demand over unsigned show cause notice. *  ITC recovery upheld where supplier failed to deposit GST: Rajasthan High Court. *  Customs commissioner’s empowered to make port trust liable for duty on pilfered goods: Supreme Court. *  Rectification proceedings can’t be used to challenge an uncontested GST assessment through a writ petition: Andhra Pradesh HC. *  GST proceedings against deceased proprietor unsustainable without notice to legal heir: GSTAT. *  Mere availment of ineligible self-assessed ITC doesn’t amount to suppression without evidence of fraud or wilful misstatement: GSTAT. *  Disposal of mining overburden by entity authorised by mining lease holder constitutes taxable service: CESTAT. *  Toll plaza data not mandatory for ITC refund: GSTAT. *  Disputed GST fraud allegations require investigation: Punjab and Haryana High Court makes interim bail absolute in alleged fraud and GST fraud case. *  Non-manufacturer contractor liable to deposit excess excise duty collected from buyer: CESTAT. *  GST order can’t reject taxpayer’s reply as “not satisfactory” without reasons: Madhya Pradesh High Court. *  Uncorroborated statements can’t establish alleged diversion of duty-free goods: CESTAT. *  Erection services were not liable to service tax prior to 10th september 2004: CESTAT. *  Sec. 74 GST notice must spell out statutory ingredients for invoking extended tax demand proceedings: Allahabad High Court. *  No jurisdictional bar under section 6(2)(b) in parallel CGST SGST proceedings: Delhi High Court refuses to bypass GST appeal remedy. *  Madras High Court remits GST demand for fresh adjudication after taxpayer claims it was unaware of SCN following business closure.  

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