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/2018-2019/3480

Whether Financial Advisory Services would be classified under Management Consultant or under Banking and Other Financial Services ?
Case: COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, MUMBAI-V Versus CRISIL LTD.
Citation: 2018 (8) G.S.T.L. 16 (Bom.)
 
Issue:Whether Financial Advisory Services would be classified under Management Consultant or  under Banking and Other Financial Services ?
 
Brief facts: The appellant by the present appeal is challenging order dated 18th May, 2016 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench at Mumbai (for short “Appellate Tribunal”) [2017 (48) S.T.R. 169(Tribunal)].
 
The respondent undertakes “Financial Advisory Services” in respect of energy, banking, development, finance, transport and urban infrastructure, disinvestment and risk management. The appellant was paying service tax on the aforementioned services under the head of “Banking and other Financial Services” with effect from 16th August, 2002. A show cause notice dated 20th February, 2003 was issued for the period 1999-2000 to 2001-2002 demanding service tax of Rs. 1,50,42,302/- by classifying the Financial Advisory Services rendered by the respondent under the category of “Management Consultancy Service”. By an Order-in-Original dated 31st October, 2011, the Adjudicating Authority viz. Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane-I confirmed the demand of Rs. 1,50,42,302/- along with interest thereon and imposed penalties under the provisions of Finance Act, 1994. The respondent being aggrieved by the Order-in-Original dated 31st October, 2011 preferred an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Adjudicating Authority dated 31st October, 2011. The department has challenged the impugned order in the present appeal.
 
Appellant’s contention:The appellant department has submitted that the Financial Advisory Services provided by the respondent falls under “Management Consultancy Services” and would be liable to service tax even prior to 16th August, 2002 when the Advisory and Financial Services were included in “Banking and other Financial Services”. He has contended that the Financial Advisory Services would fall within the definition of “Management Consultant” under Section 65(37) of the Finance Act, which reads thus :-
 
“Management Consultant” under Section 65(37) means, 'any person who is engaged in providing any service, either directly or indirectly in connection with the management of any organisation in any manner and includes any person who renders any advice, consultancy or technical assistance relating to conceptualising devising, development, modification, rectification or up-gradation of any working system of any organisation.
 
He contends that from a plain reading of the definition of “Management Consultant” it would be clear that the Financial Advisory Services were a part of the service carried out by a “Management Consultant”. He has contended that the Appellate Tribunal has erroneously arrived at a finding that the said services were not a part of Management Consultancy Services prior to 16th August, 2002 and therefore, not taxable prior to the said date.
 
Respondent’s Contention and Reasoning of Judgement:
We have carefully considered the arguments. We observe that the Financial Advisory Services undertaken by the respondent have been introduced for the first time in “Banking and other Financial Services” with effect from 16th August, 2002. The definition of Banking and other Financial Services reads thus :-
 
“Banking and other Financial Services” means the following services provided by a banking company or a financial institution including a non-banking financial company, namely -
(a)     financial leasing services including equipment leasing and hire-purchase by a body corporate;
(b)     credit card services;
(c)     merchant banking services;
(d)     securities and foreign exchange (forex) broking;
(e)     Asset management including portfolio management, all forms of fund management, pension fund management, custodial, depository and trust services, but does not include cash [management];
(f)      Advisory and other auxiliary financial services including investment and portfolio research and advice, advice on mergers and acquisitions and advice on corporate restructuring and strategy; and
(g)     Provision and transfer of information and data processing.”

From the definition of Banking and other Financial Services, it is clear that Financial Advisory Services were included as a part of the said services. Insofar as “Management Consultancy Services” are concerned these have at all times been under the Finance Act and chargeable to service tax. This would be the case even after the inclusion of Advisory and Auxiliary Financial Services under “Banking and other Financial Services” on 16th August, 2002. The definition of “Management Consultant” has also remained unchanged. The department has also not raised any objection to classifying the Financial Advisory Services under “Banking and other Financial Services”.
 
We are, therefore, of the view that it is not open for the appellant to take a contrary stand viz. that the Financial Advisory Services were falling under “Management Consultancy Services” prior to 16th August, 2002. The Appellate Tribunal have also observed that the Board Circular dated 7th October, 1998 categorically clarified that information and advisory services, if any, rendered by credit rating agency would not attract service tax. We accordingly are of the view that the Appellate Tribunal has arrived at correct finding that the advisory services provided by the respondent does not fall under category of “Management Consultancy Services” and is correctly classified under the “Banking and other Financial Services”, and hence the same was not taxable prior to 16th August, 2002.
 In the circumstances, we dismiss the present appeal. There shall be no order as to costs.
 
Decision:The application dismissed.
Comment:The analogy of the case is that  advisory and Auxiliary Consultant financial services are included under “Banking and Other financial Services” with effect from 16 August 2002.  But department has contended that prior to this date, these services of financial advisory services would be classified under “Management Consultant Services” but this contention was not accepted. As there was no change in definition of this service, thus it cannot be classified in this service. Hence, it is not liable for the payment of service tax prior to 16.08.2002.
 
Prepared By:Pushpa Choudhary
 
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