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 Laws/2012-13/1303

Whether Financing fees, Processing fees, Recovery of common expenses chargeable to service tax?



Case:- J. M. FINANCIAL SERVICES P. LTD. versus COMMR. OF SERVICE TAX, MUMBAI
 
Citation:- 2012 (27) S.T.R. 49 (Tri. – Mumbai)
 
Brief Facts:-This is stay application for waiver of pre-deposit of service tax along with interest & penalties imposed under the category of “Business Auxiliary Services” and “Business Support Services”.
 
Financing Fees: The demand has been confirmed against the applicants for IPO Finance under the head “BAS” to the tune of Rs. 84,81,472/-. The Appellant are financing to their clients through Non Banking Finance Company which are sister concerns or of the appellant’s and share the income of interest earned by these NBFC on revenue sharing basis. There was a MOU between the appellant and the NBFC in terms of which NBFC were to arrange finance for the appellant’s clients. The appellant and the NBFC Company were to share the in­come earned from this activity after deducting the expenses. The Department is of the view that said activity is covered under the "Business Auxiliary Ser­vices" because the appellant were promoting the business of these NBFC's by way of performing the activity of introducing its corporate clients to their NBFC's.
 
Processing Fees: The appellant are collecting money on behalf of the company who issues IPO. The money collected by the appellant is to be deposited in a designated bank assigned by the IPO issuing company. The appellant deposited the money in the bank and as the bank earns interest on the deposit made by the appellant. Therefore, bank shares interest earned by them with the appellants. The Revenue is of the view that it is an activity of promotion of the business of the bank, therefore, they are liable to pay service tax under “BAS.”
 
Recovery of common expenses:  The expenses are recovered by the appellant from the co-user of the premises on actual basis. The appellant are doing these expenses on behalf of co-user, and recovering the same from their co-user as per their usage. The department is of the view that the recovery of the expenses are covered under the category of infrastructural support service as the appellant are providing infrastructural support services to their co-user.
 
 
Reasoning of Judgment:-We have considered arguments on both the sides. We find that as per MOU, the appellant have agreed to compensate these NBFC’s, if any demand arises. In that situation, the appellant have not acted as a commission agent, therefore, these are doing business with these NBFC’s on principal to principal basis and sharing the profits. Therefore, the appellants are not rendering any service under “BAS” and have made out a strong case for waiver of pre-deposit of demands adjudged by the impugned order for this activity.
 
We find that prima facie the activity undertaken by the appellant is the investments in bank assigned by the IPO issuing company. The amount of interest income which the bank shares with the appellant is not because the appellant is promoting or marketing any of the services provided by the bank. Therefore, the appellants are not liable to pay service tax under this category also and have made out a case for 100% waiver of pre-deposit.
 
   
On going through the records, it is found that the activity is also not covered under the "Business Support Services" as the applicants are paying the expenses incurred by them on all the premises and thereafter recovered from the co-user on actual usage basis. There­fore, prima facie we are of view that the applicants are not rendering any service at all, they have made out a case for 100% waiver of pre-deposit.
 
Decision: -Stay Application Allowed.
 
Comment: The analogy drawn from the above case is that revenue cannot demand service tax on each and every activity by deeming it to be a service under the category of BAS or BSS as these are not residuary services that if any activity cannot said to be made taxable under any other service category, it is covered under BAS or BSS.
 
 
 
 

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