Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Missing seized records must be considered while testing ITC claim; duplicate GST demands ordered corrected: Delhi High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be rejected without addressing taxpayer’s grounds: Allahabad High Court. *  Surplus IGST credit can offset CGST, SGST shortfall: GSTAT. *  GST refund can’t be denied when cancelled airfares are returned with tax: GSTAT. *  3 Hearing notices issued within 2 minutes: Gujarat High Court flags portal flaw, seeks report. *  GSTR-9, GSTR-9C filing for FY 2025-26 enabled; pending GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B must be filed first. *  Dupattas are exempt fabrics, can’t be taxed as fibres at 4%: Madras High Court. *  Full transitional credit allowed on capital goods received after GST rollout: GSTAT denies Rs. 6.99 lakh export duty credit. *  GST return mismatch alone can’t justify fraud proceedings: GSTAT orders fresh adjudication under section 73. *  Supplier found non-existent later can’t alone justify input tax credit denial: GSTAT. *  GST interest stops once tax reaches government account, can’t run until return filing: GSTAT. *  Cancelled flat booking- GST refund can’t be denied without excluding COVID period from limitation: GSTAT. *  India notifies rules of origin for India–New Zealand FTA. *  Incomplete E-bike kits classifiable as complete vehicles, but not eligible for CKD duty concession: CESTAT. *  Same GST rate on main input and output can’t by itself bar inverted duty refund: GSTAT. *  Unjust enrichment doesn’t apply to customs refunds from assessments finalised before July 13, 2006: Gujarat High Court. *  CENVAT credit can’t be denied solely because plant And machinery are embedded in earth: Karnataka High Court. *  DFIA exports ineligible for RoDTEP benefits; customs directs repayment with applicable interest. *  Second E-Way bill alone doesn’t prove another supply: GSTAT. *  Bail denied in Rs. 1.19 crore fake GST refund case over risk of accused absconding again: Punjab and Haryana High Court. *  GST registration can be restored after revocation deadline if outstanding dues are paid: Gauhati High Court. *  Multiple GST proceedings over same suppliers: Calcutta High Court directs dept. to share findings for adjudication. *  E-Governance portal services not OIDAR, fixed deposit interest not taxable: CESTAT. *  Rs. 500 Stamp duty required on authority letters for CAs, CMA and GST practitioners in Pune GST division.  *  Rs. 1.10 crore GST refund must be paid in cash after business closure: Allahabad High Court. *  Godown rent attracts 18% GST even when used exclusively for exempt agricultural warehousing: AAR. *  GST portal launches "Multi-State Registration" facility: one master TRN for registration applications across multiple States/UTs. *  RoDTEP scheme extended till 31st December, 2026.  *  Mere disagreement with order can’t override Rs. 20 lakh appeal limit: GSTAT. *  Customs interest can’t be backdated before confiscation liability is determined; nearly 8 year period excluded: Delhi High Court.
Subject News *  GST summons: anticipatory bail maintainable without arrest order, but relief denied in evasion case: Allahabad High Court. *  GST Appeal can’t be decided without hearing taxpayer’s objections to fresh evidence: Allahabad High Court. *  GST ITC can’t be reversed merely because supplier grants discount without reducing tax liability: GSTAT. *  Mere quoting of GST provision is not a valid charge: GSTAT quashes ITC denial. *  Personal hearing mandatory before adverse GST order, even without taxpayer’s request: Rajasthan High Court. *  Parallel bail pleas without full disclosure amount to abuse of process Rs. 43.08 crore GST case sent for fresh hearing: Supreme Court. *  GST refund based on unchallenged advance ruling can’t be recovered using later circular: GSTAT. *  Payment of GST alone doesn’t end interest and penalty liability when tax and interest remain unpaid beyond 30 days of notice: GSTAT. *  GST demand over builders’ 80% procurement rule requires reasoned adjudication: GSTAT. *  Eligible ITC doesn’t automatically entitle taxpayers to compensation cess refund on domestic sales: GSTAT. *  GST confiscation order passed before reply deadline invalid: GSTAT. *  GST interest can’t be retained after tax refund on delayed export receipts: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be dismissed over pre-deposit shortfall without opportunity To respond: Bombay High Court. *  DGGI SCN can’t be challenged before reply and adjudication:Chhattisgarh High Court. *  GST input tax credit can’t be denied solely due to supplier’s retrospective registration cancellation: GSTAT. *  GST notice must explain fraud allegations; merely repeating section 74 Is not enough:  Himachal Pradesh High Court. *  Audit detection alone can’t justify GST fraud penalty; specific suppression must be proved: GSTAT. *  GST order uploaded only under ‘Additional Notices’ tab without separate intimation set aside: Calcutta High Court. *  Service Tax appeal can’t be rejected for missing pre-deposit proof when payment is already recorded: CESTAT. *  SGST dept. can’t hear appeal against CGST order: Calcutta High Court. *  Mere dispatch of tax order can’t prove service or make appeal time-barred: CESTAT. *  Dealer incentives can’t be taxed merely on ledger entries: CESTAT. *  DGFT orders quashed for failure to supply DRI letter relied upon in SCN: Bombay High Court. *  GST penalty u/s 122(1A) can’t apply to Pre-2021 transactions; unregistered beneficiaries also covered: Delhi High Court. *  Expired E-way bill caused by wrong PIN code can’t justify GST penalty without intent to evade tax: GSTAT. *  Used railway rails can’t be taxed as track material without proof they are fit for reuse: CESTAT. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand on different issue: Delhi High Court. *  ITC dispute involves no question of law: GSTAT directs appeal to Vice-President. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand On different issue: Delhi High Court. *  No E-way bill required for interstate goods movement in november 2017: GSTAT quashes detention and penalty.  

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