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 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