Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  GST registration cancellation without reasons amounts to ‘Economic Death’ of business: Supreme Court. *  No GST refund if appeal before GSTAT is filed late: Gujarat High Court. *  Mere upload of GST notice on portal not valid service, appeal limitation won’t start: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Taxpayer can’t be penalised for missing notices hidden under ‘Additional Notices/Orders’: Calcutta High Court allows fresh adjudication. *  State tax officer can’t issue GST SCN beyond CBIC-assigned jurisdiction: Bombay High Court stays recovery proceedings. *  Earlier 7.5% Pre-Deposit must count towards mandatory 10% for Appeal: Uttarakhand high court quashes CESTAT Order. *  Third Parties can’t challenge GST Advance Rulings merely due to financial impact: Karnataka HC *  GST SCN generated using AI tool quashed: Punjab & Haryana High Court *  Bank Attachment Quashed as Madras HC Quashes GST Order Issued Against Deceased Person *  ITC Blocking Order for Failure to Record ‘Reason to Believe’ U/R 86A Quashed: Allahabad High Court *  Govt Extends GSTAT Appeal Filing Deadline From 30 June to July 31, 2026 *  GST Demand on RWA Stayed: Allahabad High Court Questions Taxability of Electricity Distribution to Flat Owners *  CBIC Clarifies Jurisdiction After GST Registration Transfer: Earlier Proceedings Remain Valid, New Officer to Continue Action *  GST authorities’ certification not mandatory for reimbursement, but tax payment must be proven: Karnataka HC *  Contractor can’t seek gst reimbursement through writ when contract has arbitration clause: Karnataka HC *  Unsigned Order Is No Order in Law: AP HC Quashes GST Assessment Order for Want of Officer’s Signature *  Customs Can’t Levy Rs. 1.36 Crore Cost Recovery Charges Without Proof of Full-Day Officer Deployment: CESTAT  *  12% IGST Payable On Imported Dialysis Machine Parts: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Admits Challenge to GST Limitation Extension Notifications; Grants Protection Against Coercive Recovery *  Criminal Case Can’t Run Parallel to GST Proceedings on Same Facts: Allahabad High Court *  Allahabad High Court Stays GST Detention Order; Directs Release of Vehicle and Goods on Deposit of Rs. 1.44 Lakh *  Service Tax Can’t Be Levied on Loss-Making Contracts: Gujarat High Court *  GSTN Mandates Ship-to GSTIN in e-Invoice and e-Way Bill APIs; Introduces Voluntary e-Way Bill Closure Facility from August 1, 2026 *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred When Taxpayer Was Pursuing Rectification Remedy: Telangana High Court *  Absence of E-Way Bill and Transport Documents Justifies Customs Seizure U/s 110: Gauhati HC *  Madras High Court Upholds GST Late Fee and Penalty for Non-Filing of Annual Return, Dismisses Challenge  *  GST Records, Purchase Documents Sufficient to Discharge Burden Under Customs Act: CESTAT Orders Release of 3.65 Kg Gold  *  No Sugar Cess Payable on Sugar Exported Out of India: CESTAT *  Road Construction Services Exempt and SCN Time-Barred: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Based Solely on Form 26AS  *  ITC Freeze Upheld After GST Dept Find Suppliers Were Allegedly Fake Bill-Trading Entities: Madras HC 
Subject News *  Input service benefits can’t be denied: CESTAT allows export refund despite MMTC acting as Canalising agency. *  No service tax demand without proof of service of SCN: CESTAT. *  Service tax demand quashed as dept. fails to prove service of SCN: CESTAT *  GST : Mere allegation of inadequate consideration of reply not enough to invoke writ jurisdiction: Delhi High Court *  Onerous conditions imposed for provisional release of seized imported goods shouldn’t amount to virtual denial of relief: CESTAT. *  GST SCN without alleging fraud cannot invoke sec. 74: Karnataka High Court quashes adjudication order. *  Extended Limitation Can’t Be Invoked Merely on Form 26AS Data: CESTAT *  Revenue-Sharing with Restaurants Not Taxable as Business Support Service: CESTAT *  R. 6(3) Option Can’t Be Forced on Taxpayer; CESTAT Quashes Rs. 12.36 Crore CENVAT Credit Demand *  Excise Duty | Power Consumption Alone Can’t Prove Clandestine Manufacture: Karnataka High Court *  Madras High Court Examines DGGI’s Authority to Issue GST Penalty Orders Under Section 122, Adds DGGI as Party *  Proceedings under omitted r. 96(10) can’t survive without saving clause: andhra pradesh high court quashes gst refund recovery *  Excise duty power consumption alone can’t prove clandestine manufacture: karnataka high court *  Madras high court rules GST show cause notices must disclose grounds for invoking extended limitation *  Court Can’t Direct Extension GST Return Deadlines or Waive Interest and Penalties: Karnataka High Court *  GST Notifications Can’t Go Beyond GST Council Recommendations: Madras High Court Quashes SCN on Branded Pulses *  Appeal Can’t Be Dismissed for Delay When Dept’s Own Order Mis-states Limitation Period: CESTAT *  No Evidence of KYC or Due Diligence Breach By Customs Broker: CESTAT Quashes Licence Revocation in Export Overvaluation Case *  Glucometers Are Chemical Analysis Instruments Classifiable Under Tariff Heading 9027: CESTAT *  Validity of Post-GST Service Tax Proceedings Upheld: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Challenge to S. 73 SCN *  Rectified GST Refund Applications Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred If Original Refund Claim Was Filed Within Limitation: Gujarat HC *  Service Tax Refund Can’t Be Denied as Time-Barred When Levy Itself Is Unconstitutional: Gujarat High Court *  Same Officer Can’t Act As Auditor & Adjudicator: Karnataka High Court *  Karnataka High Court Condones 324-Day Delay, Revives Customs Appeal in Jewellery Pilferage Case  *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Order Passed Ex Parte Despite Prior ITC Reversal; Lifts Bank Attachment *  Tobacco Process Doesn’t Amount to Manufacturing: Madras High Court Quashes Rs. 1.32 Crore Compensation Cess Demand  *  Recovery Notice Unsustainable After Voluntary Reversal of Unutilised Credit: CESTAT  *  GST | ‘System Generated’ SCN Without Officer Details Invalid: Allahabad HC  *  Electronic Records Without Statutory Certification Requirements Can’t Justify Undervaluation Allegations: CESTAT *  Madras High Court Stays GST Order, Finds Prima Facie Merit in Plea Against S. 74 Proceedings Based on S. 73 Intimation  

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