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/2014-15/2461

Whether purchase of tickets by air travel agent from General Sales agent leviable to service tax under BAS?

Case:-AKBAR TRAVELS OF INDIA PVT LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, MUMBAI
 
Citation:-2014-TIOL-2291-CESTAT-MUM

Brief facts:-The appeal and stay petition are directed against order-in-original No. 11/ST(Adjudication)/RP/2013-14 dated 26.12.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax (Adjudication), Mumbai. Vide the impugned order, the learned adjudicating authority has confirmed the service tax demand of Rs. 86,32,333/- for the period 2004-05 to 2011-12 along with interest thereon and also imposed penalties under the various provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 against the appellant M/s. Akbar Travels of India Pvt. Ltd. The adjudicating authority has classified the service rendered by the appellant under 'business auxiliary service'. Aggrieved of the same, the appellant is before Tribunal.
 
Appellant’s contention:-The learned consultant for the appellant submits that the appellant herein is an air travel agent. When the customer comes for booking of passage by air, they purchase the ticket from the airline and give to the customers and on the agency charges, they discharge service tax liability under the category of 'air travel agent's service'. In respect of smaller airlines, some time they purchase the tickets from general sales agent (GSA) of the airlines, who issue tickets in the name of the travellers and hands over the tickets in the name of the travellers and hands over the tickets to the appellant for further handing over to the airline travellers. On the entire commission, the GSAs discharge service tax liability and a part of the commission is given to the appellant. A part of the commission so received is given to the travellers by way of reduction of the price of the tickets. The department seeks to levy service tax on the commission given to them by the GSAs (on which service tax liability has already been discharged) under the category of 'business auxiliary service'. It is his submission that the liability to service tax under air travel agent service has been discharged by the GSA and, therefore, subjecting the same once again to service tax under the category of business auxiliary service does not arise. He relies on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Zuari Travel Corporationdecided byorderNo. A/1716/13/CSTB/C-I dated 18.7.2013, where a more or less an identical issue was considered and  it was held that air travel agent who purchased tickets from IATA and sold the same to the traveller would be rendering air travel agency service and not business auxiliary service. Following the ratio contained therein, a coordinate Bench of the Tribunal, Bangalore, has also granted stay in applicant's own case vide order No. 21448/2014 dated 25.6.2014.
 
Respondent’s contention:-The learned Additional Commissioner appearing for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the lower authority and submits that since the appellant is getting a commission from GSA, it is promoting the business of the GSA and, therefore, the service rendered should be classified as 'business auxiliary'.
 
Reasoning of judgment:-The service rendered by the appellant herein is booking of passage for travel by air, which is squarely covered by the definition of 'air travel agent service' as defined in Section 65(4). As per the said definition, an air travel agent means any person engaged in providing any service connected with the booking of passage for travel by air and the taxable services means any service provided or to be provided by any person by an air travel agent in relation to the booking of passage for travel by air. In view of the above statutory definitions, any activity in relation to booking of passage by air travel agent would be covered under 'air travel agency service'. Whether the ticket is bought directly from the airline or through the GSA, the same would not make any difference. Therefore, the confirmation of demand under 'business auxiliary service' does not appear to be prima facie sustainable in law. This is the view taken by the Tribunal in the case of Zuari Travel Corporationand the appellant's own case cited supra. Hence the appellant has made out a strong case for waiver of dues. Accordingly we grant unconditional waiver from pre-deposit of the dues adjudged against the appellant and stay recovery thereof during the pendency of the appeal.
 
Decision:-Stay granted.

Comment:- The analogy of the case is that following the decision given in the case of Zuari Travel Corporation, air travel agent who purchases tickets from General Sales Agent and sells the same to the traveller would be rendering air travel agency service and not business auxiliary service. Any activity in relation to booking of ticket by air travel agent irrespective of the fact whether ticket is bought directly by airline or through GSA, would be covered under air travel agency service and not under business auxiliary service.
 
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