Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  The GSTN has issued an Advisory dated 21.04.2026 about the introduction of an Offline Tool for the Invoice Management System (IMS)  *  CBIC extends due dates for filing of FORM GSTR 3B  for the month of April 2026 *  Interest cannot be imposed in adjudication order, if not demanded/quantified in show cause notice : Allahabad HC *  Wheelchairs with toileting facility eligible for exemption: CESTAT affirms customs duty exemption to importer *  Industries urge GST council to allow inverted duty refunds on input services *  Tamil Nadu GST dept introduced virtual hearing facility for GST appeals under under section 107 of the TNGST act: detailed guidelines  *  CIC urges authorities to implement GST evasion complaint tracking system *  Even if the assessee opts "NO" for personal hearing in form DRC-06 ,The mandatory requirement under section 75(4) to grant opportunity of hearing cannot be waived:Gujarat High Court  *  Glufosinate imports curbs imposed by govt *  Government extends Re-import period for exported cut & polished diamonds *  CIC flags lack of tracking system for tax evasion complaints,urges GST authorities to improve transparency *  No Custodial Interrogation needed in GST fraud case based on documentary evidence already in Department's Possession : Chattisgarh HC *  Orders under section cannot be sustained if passed without considering the taxpayer's objections and without granting a personal hearing:Gujarat High Court *  Mere cancellation of supplier's registration cannot,by itself,justify denial of ITC or cancellation of the recipient's registration:Bombay High Court *  High Court sets aside GST notice citing factual errors and natural justice violations *  Provisional Bank Attachment under Section. 110 of Customs Act Unsustainable Beyond Statutory period without Extension order: Bombay HC orders to defreeze accounts *  Post Clearance MRP Alteration by Distributor Does not attract Differential Customs Duty: CESTAT *  DGFT Expands scope of 'Screws' classification under RoDTEP Scheme  *  E-way bills surze to all time high of 140.6 million in March *  GST Exemption Allowed on Pure Labour Services for Standalone Houses: AAR  *  GST Payable Only on Margin in Second-Hand Car Sales, Subject to Strict Conditions and No ITC Claim: AAR *  DGFT rolls out procedure for allocation of calcined coke *  GST portal update : Pre-deposit amount now editable in Appeals *  J&K HC declared TMT scrap a 'Specified Good' eligibile for GST refunds under Support Scheme  *  Pigmy agents are employees of banks; no GST can be levied on commission  paid to them : Karnataka HC *  DGFT Revises HS Code Description for Screws Under RoDTEP *  GST Registration Cancellation Invalid Without Proper Service of Notice: Allahabad High Court. *  Bengaluru CGST | GST Backlog Appeals Deadline Fixed at June 30, 2026 *  No Time Bar on Refund of Service Tax for Services Not Rendered: CESTAT  Remands Indiabulls Case for Unjust Enrichment Check. *  Supreme Court Holds Renewable Energy Incentive Must Benefit Generators, Not Be Adjusted in Tariff
Subject News *   Delhi HC Quashes Order, Says Reminder Cannot Validate Improperly Served GST SCN *  KARNATAKA HIGH COURT REMANDS GST SHORTFALL MATTER DUE TO ABSENCE OF PERSONAL HEARING   *  CESTAT cancels confiscation and penalties on imported computer cabinet cases: Custom duty restricted to 111 surplus units *  Deposit of tax during search or investigation cannot be treated as 'Voluntary Payment' : Bombay High Court *  Section 76 of the CGST cannot be invoked where the tax has already been duly deposited, even if through another registration of the same entity: Madras High Court *  Sec 74 allows use of material regardless of source; illegality or flaws in section 67 search do not vitiate valid adjudication: HC *  Inter-State transfer of ITC on Amalgamation permissible as given under section 18(3) read with rule 41 of the CGST rules, 2017: Gujarat High Court *  HC: No GST on commisson paid to Pigmy Agents *  IGST refund denial on illegible bill of lading invalid absent chance to furnish docs; merit reconsideration in appeals directed: HC *  ITC is not admissible on GST paid on leasehold rights of land used fpr setting up an air seperation plant: AAAR,Tamil Nadu *  GST: No penalty under Section 74 after voluntary ITC reversal due to non-existent supplier : High Court *  TN AAAR denies GST ITC on Land Lease under Sec. 17(5)(d) for setting up plant and machinery *  GST proceedings quashed as notices sent to old address, despite updated address in registration *  Importer Can’t Be Penalised for Alleged IGCR Procedural Lapses Without Evidence of Departmental Error: CESTAT *  Structured Healthcare Training Not ‘Charitable Activity’, 18% GST Payable: AAR  *  CESTAT As The Appellate Authority For Central Sales Tax Disputes: A Paradigm Shift Under Finance Act, 2023 *   Rs. 25K Cost Imposed On SGST Joint Commissioner for Attaching Bank  Accounts Without Forming Mandatory “Opinion”: Bombay HC *   Ex-Parte GST Order Without Hearing Violates Natural Justice: Karnataka  High Court Quashes Adjudication and Bank Attachment.  *   Retrospective GST Cancellation Can’t Invalidate Genuine Transactions:  Jaipur Commissioner (Appeals) Quashes Rs. 95,670 ITC Demand. *   GST Pre-Deposit Non-Compliance: Allahabad High Court Allows Appeal  Subject to Rs. 30 Lakh Balance Deposit, Recognises Offline Filing. *  Documentary Nature of Evidence: Allahabad High Court Grants Bail in Rs. 32.66 Crore Fake ITC Fraud Case *  Supreme Court Flags Systemic Bias in Army’s Permanent Commission Process for Women Officers *  Re-Determination of Land Compensation Can Be Based on Appellate Court Awards, Clarifies Scope of S. 28-A: Supreme Court. *  Supreme Court Imposes Rs. 5 Lakh Costs On Rent Authority Officer For Acting Beyond Jurisdiction. *  DGGI Meerut | Court Denies Bail to Accused in Claiming Fake ITC And Export Refunds *  Denial of GST Rate Revision Benefit to Contractor Violates Article 14: Rajasthan HC *  GST Registration Cancellation for Non-Filing of Returns: Gauhati High Court Directs Restoration on Compliance. *   Supreme Court Quashes FEMA Adjudication Orders, Revives Proceedings at  Show Cause Stage. *   Higher Rank, Harsher Punishment Justified: Supreme Court Restores Dismissal  of Bank Manager in Misappropriation Case. *   Limitation for Export Refund to Be Counted from Foreign Exchange Realisation,  Not From Export Invoices Issuance: CESTAT  

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