Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Dept. Can’t Classify Product as Zarda Scented Tobacco After Repeatedly Approving It As Chewing Tobacco: CESTAT *  Mere Uploading Of GST Order On Portal Is Not “Valid” Service: Tripura HC *  CGST Can Proceed Even If SGST Closed Similar Case Earlier: Delhi HC *  SC upholds 28% GST on online gaming with retrospective effect. *  West Bengal Govt cuts E-way Bill Threshold limit to Rs. 50,000 for intra-state goods movement. *  Criminal Prosecution Under Central Excise Act Can’t Continue After CESTAT Sets Aside Duty Demand on Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Orders for Denial of Personal Hearing; Remands Matter Subject to 10% Deposit *  Ex Parte GST Order: Madras High Court Directs Immediate Removal of Bank/ITC Attachment Upon 25% Deposit *  J.K. Cement Receives GST Demand Order of Rs 8,02,113/- from Ahmedabad Tax Authority *  Delhi Police EOW Busts Alleged Rs. 128 Crore GST Fake Invoice Network. *  REPLY TO SCN CAN’T BE TREATED AS “EMPTY FORMALITY”: ORISSA HIGH COURT QUASHES GST DEMAND OF RS. 57.30 LAKH *  Challenge to CGST Provisions restricting ITC to Bonafide Purchasers : Allahabad HC issues notice *  CBIC Notifies Revised Customs Tariff Values for Edible Oils, Gold, Silver, Brass Scrap and Areca Nuts *  Delhi HC Orders Removal of GST Attachment After Statutory 1 Year Period Expired *  GSTAT Extends Relaxed Appeal Filing Guidelines till December 31, 2026 *  AO fails to Provide Import - Export Data from DGFT to Taxpayer for Reconciliation *  Gold, Silver Imports To Get Costlier As Govt Raises Customs Duty To 10%  *  GSTAT Enables Pre-Payment Access to Document Upload and Checklist for GST Appeal Filing *  GST Portal Restrictions Can’t Override Statute: Gujarat HC Allows Cross-State Transfer Of CGST ITC After Amalgamation *  Centre Revises HS Codes for Large Diameter Steel Pipes Used in Oil & Gas Pipelines *  Customs Duty Liability Arises On Warehouse Clearance Date: Supreme Court *  Government lifts export ban on de-oiled rice bran *  CESTAT Grants 12% Interest on Pre-Deposit for Investigation from Date of Deposit till Refund and Denies Interest on Interest. *  Government Overhauls GST Classification Framework for Non-Alcoholic Beverages; Fruit Juice Drinks, Milk-Based Beverages and Caffeinated Drinks to Attract Revised 5% and 40% GST Rates from May 1, 2026 *  India’s gross GST collections hit a record Rs 2.42 lakh crore in April, up 8.7% *  Customs clearance stalled, revenue hit over MRP dispute *  Shipping Corporation explores Middle East routes as Hormuz tensions disrupt cargo movement *  India, Kenya signs MoU for exchange of pre-arrival customs information *  No demand of Taxes under Reverse Charge if Tax Already Discharged by Service Provider under forward charge *  The India-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement, signed "once-in-a-generation" deal that eliminates tariffs on 100% of Indian exports to New Zealand
Subject News *  Consignment Sales Can’t Be Reclassified as Inter-State Sales Based on Pre-Agreement Evidence: CESTAT *  Exporter Can’t Be Denied Advance Authorization Benefit Due To ICEGATE Technical Glitch: Delhi High Court *  No GST Demand For Mere Wrong Set-Off Of IGST Credit Under CGST And SGST Heads: Kerala HC. *  Cenvat Credit Can’t Be Denied on Input Services Having Nexus With Manufacturing Activities: CESTAT *  Pending Proceedings Can’t Survive Without Saving Clause: Calcutta High Court Quashes GST Demand of Rs. 6.28 Crore After Omission of Rule 96(10) *  Madras HC Quashes GST Demands on TASMAC (Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation) Bar Licence Fee *  GST Proceedings Cannot Survive Omitted Rule Without Saving Clause: Calcutta HC *  Provisional Release Can’t Be Denied Solely On Dept. Suspicion Of Misclassification And Undervaluation Of Imported Goods: CESTAT *  Businesses Should Not Be Kept Outside GST Regime Without Due Process: Gauhati High Court *  Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Reconsideration of Contractors’ Claim for Additional GST Payment After Tax Rate Hike From 12% to 18% *  S. 108 Statements Can’t Be Sole Basis Without Following Section 138B Procedure: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Frames Key Questions on Mandatory Distribution of ITC U/s 20 CGST Act *  Filing of Annexure-B for Refund Applications involving Accumulated ITC using the offline utility in GST portal: GSTN *  No Service Tax on Parent Company’s Un-Invoiced Cost Allocations Without Actual Service or Consideration: CESTAT  *  Calcutta High Court Upholds GST Classification of Polypropylene Leno Bags as Plastic Products *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  GSTAT Issues Major Bench Allocation Framework; All Appeals to First Go Before Division Bench *  ITC Blocking Without Reasoned Order Violates Rule 86A; Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Release of Credit *  Allahabad HC Refuses Bail to CGST Superintendent In Rs. 70 Lakh Bribery Case *  S.130 Can’t Be Invoked Without Prior Tax Determination U/s 73/74: Allahabad High Court Quashes GST Confiscation Proceedings *  SC grants Bail to Rs 54cr GST case  *  Karnataka HC Sets Aside Duplicate GST Orders, Orders Fresh Hearing on GSTIN Cancellation *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  Transfer Of Unutilized ITC After Amalgamation - Supreme Court Issues Notice *  PUNJAB & HARYANA HC QUASHES GST CANCELLATION NOTICE FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE CBIC ENQUIRY REPORT *  LICENSE FEE, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CHARGES NOT INCLUDIBLE IN CUSTOMS VALUE UNLESS THEY ARE A CONDITION OF SALE: CESTAT *  DELHI HC ORDERS REMOVAL OF GST ATTACHMENT AFTER STATUTORY 1 YEAR PERIOD EXPIRED *  CUSTOMS BROKER CAN’T BE FAULTED JUST BECAUSE EXPORTER’S GST REGISTRATION WAS PREVIOUSLY CANCELLED: CESTAT   *  Supreme Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Delhi HC Ruling Holding Real Operator Behind Fake GST Firms Liable As ‘Taxable Person  *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected Merely Because DRC-07 Was Not Uploaded On Portal: Bombay High Court  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/CASE LAW/2015-16/2947

Whether Promotion or marketing of CRS services being provided to overseas entity are covered under Business Auxiliary Services or not?

Case:- ABACUS DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS (INDIA) (P) LTD. Versus COMMR. OF S.T., MUMBAI-I

Citation:- 2015 (40) S.T.R. 190 (Tri. - Mumbai)

Brief facts:-In the present case demands were confirmed with interest and penalties imposed on the ground that during the period in dispute i.e. July, 2003 to March, 2010 the appellants provided Business Auxiliary Service and had not paid the appropriate Service Tax.
Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are undertaking marketing and promotion of Computer Reservation System (CRS) Software by M/s. Abacus Singapore, the foreign entity vide Agreement dated 6-6-1996. The said software performs various functions including airline seat reservations, schedules, booking for a variety of air, car and hotel services, automated ticketing and fare displays. The appellant is appointed as National Marketing Company to provide services for the marketing and promotion of Abacus CRS Software in India.

Respondent’s contention:- Revenue is of the view that the activity undertaken by the appellant amounts to providing Business Auxiliary Service.
They find that this issue is now settled by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Acquire Services Pvt. Ltd.v CST, Delhi in Appeal No. 841/2010 [2014 (36)S.T.R.1148 (Tri.-Del.)] vide final order dated 3-6-2014 whereby a demand which was confirmed on similar grounds were set aside by the Tribunal and the Tribunal held as under :-
“21.      The assessees provided services amounting to marketing of CRS, conceived, developed and owned by overseas entities, in India, by employing computer processes amounting to data processing. This the assessees did by processing information/data generated by their accredited travel agents in India and uploading the same to overseas located computer systems, which maintain and process the master data of the overseas entities. Assessees also identify and provide access to relevant segments of travel related data in the CRS to local travel agents by acting as an interface with the overseas computer systems and the composite data maintained and processed therein, by computer data processing.
22.       In our considered view services provided by assessees to the overseas entities (Amadeus/Galileo) clearly amount to promotion or marketing of CRS services of the overseas entities (a BAS), but nevertheless falls outside the ambit of BAS as defined, since these services were provided by employing computer data processing, an excluded component.
23.       …
24.       …
25.       …
26.       Another issue is whether services provided by assessees amount to export of services, within the ambit of the 2005 Rules. The Larger Bench of the Tribunal in Paul Merchants Ltd.v. CCE, Chandigarh - 2013 (29)S.T.R.257 (Tri.-Del.); followed in M/s. GAP International Sourcing (India) Pvt. Ltd.v. CST and in the recent decision dated 13-3-2014 in M/s. Alpine Moduler Interior Pvt. Limitedv. CST (Adjudication, New Delhi, explains, in a BAS context, that where the service recipient is located outside India; this taxable service is delivered and used outside India; and payment of such service provided outside India is received by the India service provider in convertible foreign exchange, the service falls within the ambit of the 2005 Rules; and is admissible to benefits thereunder. The decision of the Larger Bench in Paul Merchants Limited, particularly in the context of the facts on the basis of which the said decision was pronounced, explain the scope of relevant provisions of the 2005 Rules. From the decisions referred to supra it is clear that activities of assessees fall within the scope of the 2005 Rules. Consequently, there is no liability to Service Tax.
27.       …
28.       …
29.       …
30.       …
31.       Conclusions :
We hold that :
(a)       Services provided by assessees during 1-7-2003 to 1-5-2006 fall outside the ambit of BAS; and
(b)       Both prior and subsequent to 1-5-2006 (covering the entire periods in issue), assessees are entitled to the benefits under the Export of Service Rules, 2005. Consequently, appeal preferred by assessees are liable to be allowed.”
In view of the above decision of the Tribunal which is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case, the impugned orders are set aside and the appeals are allowed.

Decision:- Appeals allowed.

Comment:- The crux of the case is that promotion or marketing of CRS services is being provided to overseas entity by employing computer data processing.  This activity is not covered under Business Auxiliary Services. Service is delivered to recipient located outside India and is also used outside India. Payment of service is received in convertible foreign exchange. This activity amounts to ‘export of service’ and the appellant shall not be liable to pay tax.

 Prepared by:- Monika Tak

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