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 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