Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Service tax penalty can’t survive when assessee acted on dept.’s own view of non-taxability: Delhi High Court. *  GST section 74 extended limitation questionable when form 26AS mismatch was already known: Karnataka High Court grants interim relief. *  CGST demand prima facie impermissible after state GST settlement under section 128A: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court asks GSTAT to sympathetically consider delay as taxpayers pursued remedy before wrong forum. *  Supreme Court stays Tripura High Court ruling protecting genuine buyers from ITC denial over supplier’s GST default. *  Diary entries alone can’t prove clandestine removal of goods: CESTAT quashes excise penalty on steel trader. *  Customs could investigate preferential tariff claims even before sec. 28DA: Delhi High Court. *  Customs dept. relied on fake AI generated case laws: supreme court quashes Rs. 425.28 crore penalty. *  No GST exemption in affiliation and annual registration charges for admission or conduct Of examinations: GSTAT. *  Mere invoices, cheque payments insufficient to establish genuine movement of goods: GSTAT restores Rs. 43.44 lakh ITC demand. *  Consolidated GST show cause notice covering multiple financial years is not without jurisdiction: Delhi High Court. *  Construction of independent houses on separate plots not taxable as ‘Residential Complex’ without common facilities: CESTAT. *  GST penalty exceeding statutory maximum unsustainable; Allahabad High Court quashes ? 50,000/- penalty after taxpayer filed return and paid late fee. *  GST order against standard chartered bank passed without hearing set aside by Bombay High Court. *  Retracted statements can’t be relied upon without cross-examination: CESTAT quashes gold confiscation. *  Burden to prove misclassification lies on customs department: CESTAT. *  CESTAT quashes Rs. 98 lakh excise demand on clearance of used refractory brick scrap. *  Service tax demand on irrigation works quashed: Karnataka High Court rules sale of goods component not taxable as service. *  GSTAT restores tax and penalty for transporting iron scrap without E-way bill citing intent to evade tax. *  Madras High Court stays GST recovery from directors without opportunity to show cause under section 89. *  Madras high court stays GST recovery notice against directors; finds prima facie case on applicability of section 79(1)(c). *  Procedural lapses can’t justify harsh punishment without serious customs breach: CESTAT quashes customs broker licence revocation. *  Service tax payable on land leasing and sports complex charges: CESTAT. *  Settled customs dispute can’t be reopened through Article 226 challenge to interest liability: Delhi High Court. *  Mere facilitation of customs clearance can’t establish knowledge of smuggling: Madras High Court. *  GST registration cancellation stayed: Allahabad High Court questions 99% ITC utilisation cap under rule 86B. *  Composition scheme lapses automatically on crossing Rs. 1.5 crore turnover: GSTAT. *  Gujarat High Court quashes GST cancellation orders after officer relied on non-existent AI-generated case laws. *  Importers liable for customs duty benefits availed through manipulated scrips: Delhi High Court. *  Procedural E-way bill lapse alone can’t justify penalty where genuine transaction and absence of tax evasion are established: GSTAT.
Subject News *  Documentary evidence dominates probe, further custody unwarranted: mumbai court grants bail in Rs. 22.44 crore customs duty evasion case. *  Business premises can’t remain sealed for non-participation in GST search: Allahabad High Court. *  GST pre-deposit must be refunded proportionately when taxpayer partly succeeds in appeal: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court grants 30 days to file GST appeal; keeps pre-deposit issue open due to deposit in parallel CGST proceedings. *  GST demand can’t exceed amount proposed in SCN: Allahabad High Court quashes Rs. 20.47 Crore order. *  Hundreds-of-crores GST demand and heavy 10% pre-deposit no ground to bypass statutory appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Delhi High Court refuses to entertain challenge to gold confiscation due to statutory appeal remedy and unexplained delay. *  Procedural error in customs broker licence inquiry can be rectified through remand: Delhi High Court. *  GSTR-2A mismatch alone can’t justify ITC denial without invoice-wise verification; personal hearing mandatory: GSTAT. *  GST order passed without uploading personal hearing notices violates sec. 75(4): Allahabad High Court. *  TAX EVASION - Sec. 74 GST SCN quashed for not spelling out fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression: Allahabad High Court. *  STPI’s SOFTEX certification and NoC charges taxable as business support services: CESTAT. *  Suspicion can’t replace proof: CESTAT quashes penalty in alleged gold-smuggling operation. *   Limitation runs from communication of order: Madras High Court upholds rejection of delayed GST Appeals. *  Rajasthan High Court quashes GST demand over unsigned show cause notice. *  ITC recovery upheld where supplier failed to deposit GST: Rajasthan High Court. *  Customs commissioner’s empowered to make port trust liable for duty on pilfered goods: Supreme Court. *  Rectification proceedings can’t be used to challenge an uncontested GST assessment through a writ petition: Andhra Pradesh HC. *  GST proceedings against deceased proprietor unsustainable without notice to legal heir: GSTAT. *  Mere availment of ineligible self-assessed ITC doesn’t amount to suppression without evidence of fraud or wilful misstatement: GSTAT. *  Disposal of mining overburden by entity authorised by mining lease holder constitutes taxable service: CESTAT. *  Toll plaza data not mandatory for ITC refund: GSTAT. *  Disputed GST fraud allegations require investigation: Punjab and Haryana High Court makes interim bail absolute in alleged fraud and GST fraud case. *  Non-manufacturer contractor liable to deposit excess excise duty collected from buyer: CESTAT. *  GST order can’t reject taxpayer’s reply as “not satisfactory” without reasons: Madhya Pradesh High Court. *  Uncorroborated statements can’t establish alleged diversion of duty-free goods: CESTAT. *  Erection services were not liable to service tax prior to 10th september 2004: CESTAT. *  Sec. 74 GST notice must spell out statutory ingredients for invoking extended tax demand proceedings: Allahabad High Court. *  No jurisdictional bar under section 6(2)(b) in parallel CGST SGST proceedings: Delhi High Court refuses to bypass GST appeal remedy. *  Madras High Court remits GST demand for fresh adjudication after taxpayer claims it was unaware of SCN following business closure.  

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