Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Dept. Can’t Classify Product as Zarda Scented Tobacco After Repeatedly Approving It As Chewing Tobacco: CESTAT *  Mere Uploading Of GST Order On Portal Is Not “Valid” Service: Tripura HC *  CGST Can Proceed Even If SGST Closed Similar Case Earlier: Delhi HC *  SC upholds 28% GST on online gaming with retrospective effect. *  West Bengal Govt cuts E-way Bill Threshold limit to Rs. 50,000 for intra-state goods movement. *  Criminal Prosecution Under Central Excise Act Can’t Continue After CESTAT Sets Aside Duty Demand on Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Orders for Denial of Personal Hearing; Remands Matter Subject to 10% Deposit *  Ex Parte GST Order: Madras High Court Directs Immediate Removal of Bank/ITC Attachment Upon 25% Deposit *  J.K. Cement Receives GST Demand Order of Rs 8,02,113/- from Ahmedabad Tax Authority *  Delhi Police EOW Busts Alleged Rs. 128 Crore GST Fake Invoice Network. *  REPLY TO SCN CAN’T BE TREATED AS “EMPTY FORMALITY”: ORISSA HIGH COURT QUASHES GST DEMAND OF RS. 57.30 LAKH *  Challenge to CGST Provisions restricting ITC to Bonafide Purchasers : Allahabad HC issues notice *  CBIC Notifies Revised Customs Tariff Values for Edible Oils, Gold, Silver, Brass Scrap and Areca Nuts *  Delhi HC Orders Removal of GST Attachment After Statutory 1 Year Period Expired *  GSTAT Extends Relaxed Appeal Filing Guidelines till December 31, 2026 *  AO fails to Provide Import - Export Data from DGFT to Taxpayer for Reconciliation *  Gold, Silver Imports To Get Costlier As Govt Raises Customs Duty To 10%  *  GSTAT Enables Pre-Payment Access to Document Upload and Checklist for GST Appeal Filing *  GST Portal Restrictions Can’t Override Statute: Gujarat HC Allows Cross-State Transfer Of CGST ITC After Amalgamation *  Centre Revises HS Codes for Large Diameter Steel Pipes Used in Oil & Gas Pipelines *  Customs Duty Liability Arises On Warehouse Clearance Date: Supreme Court *  Government lifts export ban on de-oiled rice bran *  CESTAT Grants 12% Interest on Pre-Deposit for Investigation from Date of Deposit till Refund and Denies Interest on Interest. *  Government Overhauls GST Classification Framework for Non-Alcoholic Beverages; Fruit Juice Drinks, Milk-Based Beverages and Caffeinated Drinks to Attract Revised 5% and 40% GST Rates from May 1, 2026 *  India’s gross GST collections hit a record Rs 2.42 lakh crore in April, up 8.7% *  Customs clearance stalled, revenue hit over MRP dispute *  Shipping Corporation explores Middle East routes as Hormuz tensions disrupt cargo movement *  India, Kenya signs MoU for exchange of pre-arrival customs information *  No demand of Taxes under Reverse Charge if Tax Already Discharged by Service Provider under forward charge *  The India-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement, signed "once-in-a-generation" deal that eliminates tariffs on 100% of Indian exports to New Zealand
Subject News *  Consignment Sales Can’t Be Reclassified as Inter-State Sales Based on Pre-Agreement Evidence: CESTAT *  Exporter Can’t Be Denied Advance Authorization Benefit Due To ICEGATE Technical Glitch: Delhi High Court *  No GST Demand For Mere Wrong Set-Off Of IGST Credit Under CGST And SGST Heads: Kerala HC. *  Cenvat Credit Can’t Be Denied on Input Services Having Nexus With Manufacturing Activities: CESTAT *  Pending Proceedings Can’t Survive Without Saving Clause: Calcutta High Court Quashes GST Demand of Rs. 6.28 Crore After Omission of Rule 96(10) *  Madras HC Quashes GST Demands on TASMAC (Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation) Bar Licence Fee *  GST Proceedings Cannot Survive Omitted Rule Without Saving Clause: Calcutta HC *  Provisional Release Can’t Be Denied Solely On Dept. Suspicion Of Misclassification And Undervaluation Of Imported Goods: CESTAT *  Businesses Should Not Be Kept Outside GST Regime Without Due Process: Gauhati High Court *  Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Reconsideration of Contractors’ Claim for Additional GST Payment After Tax Rate Hike From 12% to 18% *  S. 108 Statements Can’t Be Sole Basis Without Following Section 138B Procedure: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Frames Key Questions on Mandatory Distribution of ITC U/s 20 CGST Act *  Filing of Annexure-B for Refund Applications involving Accumulated ITC using the offline utility in GST portal: GSTN *  No Service Tax on Parent Company’s Un-Invoiced Cost Allocations Without Actual Service or Consideration: CESTAT  *  Calcutta High Court Upholds GST Classification of Polypropylene Leno Bags as Plastic Products *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  GSTAT Issues Major Bench Allocation Framework; All Appeals to First Go Before Division Bench *  ITC Blocking Without Reasoned Order Violates Rule 86A; Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Release of Credit *  Allahabad HC Refuses Bail to CGST Superintendent In Rs. 70 Lakh Bribery Case *  S.130 Can’t Be Invoked Without Prior Tax Determination U/s 73/74: Allahabad High Court Quashes GST Confiscation Proceedings *  SC grants Bail to Rs 54cr GST case  *  Karnataka HC Sets Aside Duplicate GST Orders, Orders Fresh Hearing on GSTIN Cancellation *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  Transfer Of Unutilized ITC After Amalgamation - Supreme Court Issues Notice *  PUNJAB & HARYANA HC QUASHES GST CANCELLATION NOTICE FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE CBIC ENQUIRY REPORT *  LICENSE FEE, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CHARGES NOT INCLUDIBLE IN CUSTOMS VALUE UNLESS THEY ARE A CONDITION OF SALE: CESTAT *  DELHI HC ORDERS REMOVAL OF GST ATTACHMENT AFTER STATUTORY 1 YEAR PERIOD EXPIRED *  CUSTOMS BROKER CAN’T BE FAULTED JUST BECAUSE EXPORTER’S GST REGISTRATION WAS PREVIOUSLY CANCELLED: CESTAT   *  Supreme Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Delhi HC Ruling Holding Real Operator Behind Fake GST Firms Liable As ‘Taxable Person  *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected Merely Because DRC-07 Was Not Uploaded On Portal: Bombay High Court  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/Case Law/2013-14/2009

Whether diesel received free of cost from the service recipient is included in gross value of service provided?

Case:- KARAMJEET SINGH & CO. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C.EX., RAIPUR

Citation:-2013(32) S.T.R. 740 (Tri.-Del.)

Brief Facts:-The four appeals are preferred (by the same assessee) against adjudi­cation orders dated 16-5-2008, 20-7-2009, 20-7-2009, 20-7-2009 and 31-1-2011, re­spectively determining the assessee’s liability to specified amounts of Service Tax, interest and penalties.

The assessee was proceeded against for under remittance of Service for the taxable "site formation and clearance, excavation and earth moving demolition" services provided to M/s. Jindal Steel & Power Limited (JSPL) under distinct contracts covering the period 16-6-2005 to 31-3-2007; 1-4-2007 to 30-9-2007; 1-10-2007 to 31-9-2008; and 1-10-2008 to 30-9-2009, respectively. Before the adjudicating authority the assessee had contended that for the entire period covered by the adjudication order dated 16-5-2008 (subject matter of Appeal No. ST/578/2008) and for the period covered by the adjudication order dated 20-7‑2009 (subject matter of Appeal No. ST/803/2009) Service Tax was due to be remitted since the services provided by the assessee, on a true and fair construction of the transaction did not fall under site formation and clearance etc. service, a contention that did not find favour with the adjudicating authority.

The short issue that falls for consideration is whether the value of diesel supplied by the service recipient JSPL, free of cost, to the assessee service provider ought to be included in the gross value charged for the service provid­ed for valuation of the tax liability under Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994. The adjudicating authority concluded that the value of the diesel so supplied by the service recipient to the assessee/service provider should be included. Since the assessee failed to reveal the value of the diesel so provided by JSPL and to in­clude the same in the gross value receipts disclosed in the Service Tax-3 returns and failed to remit tax on such value, proceedings were initiated culminating in the adjudication orders, impugned in these appeals. Since this is the core issue we refer to the adjudication order dated 16-5-2008 (subject matter of Appeal No. ST/572/2008) as illustrative of all the adjudication orders which are impugned in the appeals.

The adjudicating authority in para 6 of the order extracted provisions of Section 67 of the Act; in para 7, the value of the diesel supplied free of cost by the service recipient to the assessee is set out in a tabular form, and there is no contest on the valuation of the diesel price. In pare 7.2, the adjudicating authority concluded that the total diesel consumed during the relevant period was of the value of Rs. 27,51,22,718/- and that this value must be considered as the consid­eration received by the service provider from the service recipient for providing the taxable service of site clearance, under Section 67(1)(ii) of the Act.

Respondent Contentions:-The respondent reiterated the findings of the adjudicating authority.

Reasoning of Judgment:-Whether the above conclusion and analysis is sustainable is the only issue before this Tribunal.

In the context of a challenge to the vires of Rule 5(1) of Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006, the High Court of Delhi in Intercontinental Consultants & Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India - 2013 (29) S.T.R. 9 (Del.) had occasion to consider the scope of Section 67 of the Act as well. To the extent relevant and material, suffice it to notice that Rule 5(1) of the 2006 Rules enjoins that where any expenditure or cost is incurred by the service provider in the course of providing a taxable service, all such expenditure or costs shall be treated as con­sideration for the taxable service provided or to be provided and shall be includ­ed in the value for the purpose of charging Service Tax on the said service. This provision was challenged on the ground of transgressing the scope and trajectory of Section 67 of the Act. The High Court invalidated Rule 5(1) of the 2006 Rules on the conclusion that this provision was ultra vires Section 67 of the Act. In the course of analysis, the Delhi High Court concluded that in the context of Section 67 read holistically with the provisions of Section 66 as well, it is clear that quan­tification of the value of a service can never exceed the gross amount charged by the service provider for the service provided to him and that the mere fact that rule was made as a subordinate legislation would not enable an expansion of the legitimate contours of the statutory provision. Proceeding from this analysis of Section 67, the High Court concluded that expenditure or costs incurred by the service provider in the course of providing the taxable service can never be con­sidered as the gross amount charged by the service provider for such service provided by him.

In the light of the aforesaid clear ratio delineated in Intercontinental Consultants & Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (supra), the conclusion is irre­sistible that the value of diesel supplied free of cost by the service recipient to the assessee service provider for providing the taxable "site formation and clearance, excavation and earthmoving and demolition" service would not be a component of the gross value charged for the service provided, for computation of tax under Section 67 of the Act and the failure to so include would not constitute either suppression of material facts nor a wilful contravention of the provisions of the Act with a view to evade tax, justifying invocation of the extended period of limi­tation under the proviso to Section 73(i) of the Act either. The several adjudica­tion orders impugned in these appeals are unsustainable on the aforesaid analy­sis and are accordingly quashed. The appeals are allowed but in the circum­stances without costs.
 
Decision:-Appeal allowed.

Comment:- Following the ratio of the decision given by the High Court in the case of Intercontinental Consultants & Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, the value of material supplied free of cost by the service recipient is not includible in the taxable value for the purpose of levy of service tax.
 
 

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