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/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