Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  GST registration cancellation without reasons amounts to ‘Economic Death’ of business: Supreme Court. *  No GST refund if appeal before GSTAT is filed late: Gujarat High Court. *  Mere upload of GST notice on portal not valid service, appeal limitation won’t start: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Taxpayer can’t be penalised for missing notices hidden under ‘Additional Notices/Orders’: Calcutta High Court allows fresh adjudication. *  State tax officer can’t issue GST SCN beyond CBIC-assigned jurisdiction: Bombay High Court stays recovery proceedings. *  Earlier 7.5% Pre-Deposit must count towards mandatory 10% for Appeal: Uttarakhand high court quashes CESTAT Order. *  Third Parties can’t challenge GST Advance Rulings merely due to financial impact: Karnataka HC *  GST SCN generated using AI tool quashed: Punjab & Haryana High Court *  Bank Attachment Quashed as Madras HC Quashes GST Order Issued Against Deceased Person *  ITC Blocking Order for Failure to Record ‘Reason to Believe’ U/R 86A Quashed: Allahabad High Court *  Govt Extends GSTAT Appeal Filing Deadline From 30 June to July 31, 2026 *  GST Demand on RWA Stayed: Allahabad High Court Questions Taxability of Electricity Distribution to Flat Owners *  CBIC Clarifies Jurisdiction After GST Registration Transfer: Earlier Proceedings Remain Valid, New Officer to Continue Action *  GST authorities’ certification not mandatory for reimbursement, but tax payment must be proven: Karnataka HC *  Contractor can’t seek gst reimbursement through writ when contract has arbitration clause: Karnataka HC *  Unsigned Order Is No Order in Law: AP HC Quashes GST Assessment Order for Want of Officer’s Signature *  Customs Can’t Levy Rs. 1.36 Crore Cost Recovery Charges Without Proof of Full-Day Officer Deployment: CESTAT  *  12% IGST Payable On Imported Dialysis Machine Parts: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Admits Challenge to GST Limitation Extension Notifications; Grants Protection Against Coercive Recovery *  Criminal Case Can’t Run Parallel to GST Proceedings on Same Facts: Allahabad High Court *  Allahabad High Court Stays GST Detention Order; Directs Release of Vehicle and Goods on Deposit of Rs. 1.44 Lakh *  Service Tax Can’t Be Levied on Loss-Making Contracts: Gujarat High Court *  GSTN Mandates Ship-to GSTIN in e-Invoice and e-Way Bill APIs; Introduces Voluntary e-Way Bill Closure Facility from August 1, 2026 *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred When Taxpayer Was Pursuing Rectification Remedy: Telangana High Court *  Absence of E-Way Bill and Transport Documents Justifies Customs Seizure U/s 110: Gauhati HC *  Madras High Court Upholds GST Late Fee and Penalty for Non-Filing of Annual Return, Dismisses Challenge  *  GST Records, Purchase Documents Sufficient to Discharge Burden Under Customs Act: CESTAT Orders Release of 3.65 Kg Gold  *  No Sugar Cess Payable on Sugar Exported Out of India: CESTAT *  Road Construction Services Exempt and SCN Time-Barred: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Based Solely on Form 26AS  *  ITC Freeze Upheld After GST Dept Find Suppliers Were Allegedly Fake Bill-Trading Entities: Madras HC 
Subject News *  Input service benefits can’t be denied: CESTAT allows export refund despite MMTC acting as Canalising agency. *  No service tax demand without proof of service of SCN: CESTAT. *  Service tax demand quashed as dept. fails to prove service of SCN: CESTAT *  GST : Mere allegation of inadequate consideration of reply not enough to invoke writ jurisdiction: Delhi High Court *  Onerous conditions imposed for provisional release of seized imported goods shouldn’t amount to virtual denial of relief: CESTAT. *  GST SCN without alleging fraud cannot invoke sec. 74: Karnataka High Court quashes adjudication order. *  Extended Limitation Can’t Be Invoked Merely on Form 26AS Data: CESTAT *  Revenue-Sharing with Restaurants Not Taxable as Business Support Service: CESTAT *  R. 6(3) Option Can’t Be Forced on Taxpayer; CESTAT Quashes Rs. 12.36 Crore CENVAT Credit Demand *  Excise Duty | Power Consumption Alone Can’t Prove Clandestine Manufacture: Karnataka High Court *  Madras High Court Examines DGGI’s Authority to Issue GST Penalty Orders Under Section 122, Adds DGGI as Party *  Proceedings under omitted r. 96(10) can’t survive without saving clause: andhra pradesh high court quashes gst refund recovery *  Excise duty power consumption alone can’t prove clandestine manufacture: karnataka high court *  Madras high court rules GST show cause notices must disclose grounds for invoking extended limitation *  Court Can’t Direct Extension GST Return Deadlines or Waive Interest and Penalties: Karnataka High Court *  GST Notifications Can’t Go Beyond GST Council Recommendations: Madras High Court Quashes SCN on Branded Pulses *  Appeal Can’t Be Dismissed for Delay When Dept’s Own Order Mis-states Limitation Period: CESTAT *  No Evidence of KYC or Due Diligence Breach By Customs Broker: CESTAT Quashes Licence Revocation in Export Overvaluation Case *  Glucometers Are Chemical Analysis Instruments Classifiable Under Tariff Heading 9027: CESTAT *  Validity of Post-GST Service Tax Proceedings Upheld: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Challenge to S. 73 SCN *  Rectified GST Refund Applications Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred If Original Refund Claim Was Filed Within Limitation: Gujarat HC *  Service Tax Refund Can’t Be Denied as Time-Barred When Levy Itself Is Unconstitutional: Gujarat High Court *  Same Officer Can’t Act As Auditor & Adjudicator: Karnataka High Court *  Karnataka High Court Condones 324-Day Delay, Revives Customs Appeal in Jewellery Pilferage Case  *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Order Passed Ex Parte Despite Prior ITC Reversal; Lifts Bank Attachment *  Tobacco Process Doesn’t Amount to Manufacturing: Madras High Court Quashes Rs. 1.32 Crore Compensation Cess Demand  *  Recovery Notice Unsustainable After Voluntary Reversal of Unutilised Credit: CESTAT  *  GST | ‘System Generated’ SCN Without Officer Details Invalid: Allahabad HC  *  Electronic Records Without Statutory Certification Requirements Can’t Justify Undervaluation Allegations: CESTAT *  Madras High Court Stays GST Order, Finds Prima Facie Merit in Plea Against S. 74 Proceedings Based on S. 73 Intimation  

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