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-2013/14-1593

Whether collection of toll charges by assessee leviable to service tax under BAS?

Case:-M/s IDAA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, MUMBAI-II
 
Citation:-2013-TIOL-599-CESTAT-MUM
 
Brief Facts:-M/s. IDAA Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. were engaged by the National Highway Authority of India Ltd. (NHAI) for the extension and improvement of NH No. 8 between Bharuch and Surat from 198 Km to 263 Km on Build, Operate and Transfer (BOT) basis. For the activity undertaken by them, they were permitted to collect Toll charges and compensation of the cost incurred by them for the expansion and improvement of roads. The department was of the view that the activity undertaken by the appellant falls under the category of Business Auxiliary Service inasmuch as they were collecting Toll charges on behalf of NHAI and, therefore, they are liable to pay Service Tax on the on the Toll charges so collected. Accordingly, a showcause notice dated 23.1.2011 was issued for the period 2006-07 and 2010-11 demanding Service Tax of Rs.20,23,61,817/-. The case was adjudicated vide the impugned order and the Service Tax demand was confirmed along with interest thereon and an equivalent amount of penalty was imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 apart from the penalty of Rs.5000/- under Section 77 of the Act.
 
Appellant Contentions:-The appellant submitted that they were not collecting any Toll charges on behalf of M/s NHAI. The activity undertaken by them was widening and improvement of the road and they incurred cost for undertaking this activity and towards compensation for the cost incurred, they were permitted to collect Toll charges from the users of the highway. Thus, the Toll charges were the means of financing the widening and improvement of road. They have undertaken collection of Toll charges for themselves and not on behalf of NHAI. Therefore, the said activity cannot be classified as “Business Auxiliary Services”.
 
Appellant also submitted that vide the Circular No.152/3/2012-ST dated 22.2.2012, the CBE&C has examined the issue and clarified that where Special Purpose Vehicle is formed under BOT arrangement and they are allowed to collect Toll charges on their own account, the same activity is not subjected to Service Tax and, therefore Board's Circular also supports their claim.
 
Respondent Contentions:-Respondent reiterates the findings of the lower authority.
 
Reasoning of Judgement:-Circular No. 152/3/2012-ST dated 22.2.2012 reads as follows:-
 
“Subject: Toll in the nature of 'user charge' or 'access fee' paid by roadsusers - regarding.
 
A representation has been received by the Board, seeking clarification regardingleviability of service tax on toll fee (hereinafter referred as 'toll') paid by users, forusing the roads. The representation has been examined.
 
2. Service tax is not leviable on toll paid by the users of roads, including those roads constructed by a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) created under an agreement between National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) or a State Authority and the concessionaire (Public Private Partnership Model, Build-Own/Operate-Transfer arrangement). 'Tolls' is a matter enumerated (serial number 59) in List-II (State List), in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India and the same is not covered by any of the taxable services at present. Tolls collected under the PPP model by the SPV is collection on own account and not on behalf of the person who has made the land available for construction of the road.
 
3. However, if the SPV engages an independent entity to collect toll from users on its behalf and a part of toll collection is retained by that independent entity as commission or is compensated in any other manner, service tax liability arises on such commission or charges, under the Business Auxiliary Service [section 65(105) (zzb) read with section 65(19) of the Finance Act, 1994].
 
4. Further, an SPV formed as a result of agreement between NHAI or State Authority and the concessionaire under the BOT arrangement, cannot be considered as an agent of the NHAI. Renting, leasing or licensing of vacant land by the NHAI or State Authority to an SPV for construction of road and such construction do not attract service tax.
 
5. This Circular may be communicated to the field formations and service tax assessees, through Public Notice/ Trade Notice.”
 
A reading of the above Circular makes it absolutely clear that an SPV formed as a result of agreement between NHAI or State Authority and the concessionaire under the BOT arrangement, the Concessionaire cannot be considered as an agent of the NHAI. Further, if Tolls are collected by the Concessionaire on their own account, then such collections is not covered under any taxable service. In view of the clarification given by the Board, Tribunal is of the prima facie view that the appellant has made out a strong case in their favour for grant of stay.
 
Decision:-Stay application allowed.

Comment:-The essence of this case is that a Special Purpose Vehicle formed due to agreement between NHAI and the Concessionaire under Build Operate Transfer model does not attracts service tax under BAS service on account of Board’s circular issued in this regard.

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