Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Service tax penalty can’t survive when assessee acted on dept.’s own view of non-taxability: Delhi High Court. *  GST section 74 extended limitation questionable when form 26AS mismatch was already known: Karnataka High Court grants interim relief. *  CGST demand prima facie impermissible after state GST settlement under section 128A: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court asks GSTAT to sympathetically consider delay as taxpayers pursued remedy before wrong forum. *  Supreme Court stays Tripura High Court ruling protecting genuine buyers from ITC denial over supplier’s GST default. *  Diary entries alone can’t prove clandestine removal of goods: CESTAT quashes excise penalty on steel trader. *  Customs could investigate preferential tariff claims even before sec. 28DA: Delhi High Court. *  Customs dept. relied on fake AI generated case laws: supreme court quashes Rs. 425.28 crore penalty. *  No GST exemption in affiliation and annual registration charges for admission or conduct Of examinations: GSTAT. *  Mere invoices, cheque payments insufficient to establish genuine movement of goods: GSTAT restores Rs. 43.44 lakh ITC demand. *  Consolidated GST show cause notice covering multiple financial years is not without jurisdiction: Delhi High Court. *  Construction of independent houses on separate plots not taxable as ‘Residential Complex’ without common facilities: CESTAT. *  GST penalty exceeding statutory maximum unsustainable; Allahabad High Court quashes ? 50,000/- penalty after taxpayer filed return and paid late fee. *  GST order against standard chartered bank passed without hearing set aside by Bombay High Court. *  Retracted statements can’t be relied upon without cross-examination: CESTAT quashes gold confiscation. *  Burden to prove misclassification lies on customs department: CESTAT. *  CESTAT quashes Rs. 98 lakh excise demand on clearance of used refractory brick scrap. *  Service tax demand on irrigation works quashed: Karnataka High Court rules sale of goods component not taxable as service. *  GSTAT restores tax and penalty for transporting iron scrap without E-way bill citing intent to evade tax. *  Madras High Court stays GST recovery from directors without opportunity to show cause under section 89. *  Madras high court stays GST recovery notice against directors; finds prima facie case on applicability of section 79(1)(c). *  Procedural lapses can’t justify harsh punishment without serious customs breach: CESTAT quashes customs broker licence revocation. *  Service tax payable on land leasing and sports complex charges: CESTAT. *  Settled customs dispute can’t be reopened through Article 226 challenge to interest liability: Delhi High Court. *  Mere facilitation of customs clearance can’t establish knowledge of smuggling: Madras High Court. *  GST registration cancellation stayed: Allahabad High Court questions 99% ITC utilisation cap under rule 86B. *  Composition scheme lapses automatically on crossing Rs. 1.5 crore turnover: GSTAT. *  Gujarat High Court quashes GST cancellation orders after officer relied on non-existent AI-generated case laws. *  Importers liable for customs duty benefits availed through manipulated scrips: Delhi High Court. *  Procedural E-way bill lapse alone can’t justify penalty where genuine transaction and absence of tax evasion are established: GSTAT.
Subject News *  Documentary evidence dominates probe, further custody unwarranted: mumbai court grants bail in Rs. 22.44 crore customs duty evasion case. *  Business premises can’t remain sealed for non-participation in GST search: Allahabad High Court. *  GST pre-deposit must be refunded proportionately when taxpayer partly succeeds in appeal: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court grants 30 days to file GST appeal; keeps pre-deposit issue open due to deposit in parallel CGST proceedings. *  GST demand can’t exceed amount proposed in SCN: Allahabad High Court quashes Rs. 20.47 Crore order. *  Hundreds-of-crores GST demand and heavy 10% pre-deposit no ground to bypass statutory appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Delhi High Court refuses to entertain challenge to gold confiscation due to statutory appeal remedy and unexplained delay. *  Procedural error in customs broker licence inquiry can be rectified through remand: Delhi High Court. *  GSTR-2A mismatch alone can’t justify ITC denial without invoice-wise verification; personal hearing mandatory: GSTAT. *  GST order passed without uploading personal hearing notices violates sec. 75(4): Allahabad High Court. *  TAX EVASION - Sec. 74 GST SCN quashed for not spelling out fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression: Allahabad High Court. *  STPI’s SOFTEX certification and NoC charges taxable as business support services: CESTAT. *  Suspicion can’t replace proof: CESTAT quashes penalty in alleged gold-smuggling operation. *   Limitation runs from communication of order: Madras High Court upholds rejection of delayed GST Appeals. *  Rajasthan High Court quashes GST demand over unsigned show cause notice. *  ITC recovery upheld where supplier failed to deposit GST: Rajasthan High Court. *  Customs commissioner’s empowered to make port trust liable for duty on pilfered goods: Supreme Court. *  Rectification proceedings can’t be used to challenge an uncontested GST assessment through a writ petition: Andhra Pradesh HC. *  GST proceedings against deceased proprietor unsustainable without notice to legal heir: GSTAT. *  Mere availment of ineligible self-assessed ITC doesn’t amount to suppression without evidence of fraud or wilful misstatement: GSTAT. *  Disposal of mining overburden by entity authorised by mining lease holder constitutes taxable service: CESTAT. *  Toll plaza data not mandatory for ITC refund: GSTAT. *  Disputed GST fraud allegations require investigation: Punjab and Haryana High Court makes interim bail absolute in alleged fraud and GST fraud case. *  Non-manufacturer contractor liable to deposit excess excise duty collected from buyer: CESTAT. *  GST order can’t reject taxpayer’s reply as “not satisfactory” without reasons: Madhya Pradesh High Court. *  Uncorroborated statements can’t establish alleged diversion of duty-free goods: CESTAT. *  Erection services were not liable to service tax prior to 10th september 2004: CESTAT. *  Sec. 74 GST notice must spell out statutory ingredients for invoking extended tax demand proceedings: Allahabad High Court. *  No jurisdictional bar under section 6(2)(b) in parallel CGST SGST proceedings: Delhi High Court refuses to bypass GST appeal remedy. *  Madras High Court remits GST demand for fresh adjudication after taxpayer claims it was unaware of SCN following business closure.  

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