Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *   CBIC issues draft rules for Customs valuation *  Top Headlines: Threshold for Benami deals, green bond investors, and more *  Govt aims 1-hour clearance for goods at all ports *  Exporters Allowed To Use RoDTEP, RoSCTL Scrips To Pay Customs Duty, Transfer Them; Rules Amended *  Millions of labourers to be affected by brick producers’ strike over hike in GST, coal rates *  Inauguration of ‘kendriya GST parisar’ *  Transporter can seek Release of Conveyance alone, not Goods under GST Act: Madras HC *  GST: Quoting of DIN Mandatory for Responding to Notice, Govt Modifies Portal *  Firms can soon file claims for GST credits of ?400 cr *  CBIC issues modalities for filing transitional credit under GST. *  Mumbai: Man creates 36 fake GST firms, arrested for input tax credit fraud of Rs 23 cr *  Report to restructure Commerce Ministry under study; idea is to set up trade promotion body: Goyal *  Firms can soon file claims for GST credits of ?400 cr *  Gambling Alert! Govt May Levy Up To 28% GST; UP, Bengal Back Move *  EPFO backs raising retirement age to ease pressure on pension funds *  India Moving Up Power Scale, Set to Become Third Largest Economy By 2030 *  Airfares Get Expensive: What Changes for Flyers From Today? *  IRCTC Latest News: Passengers to Pay More For Cancelling Confirmed Rail Tickets Soon. *  IBC prevails over Customs Act, says Supreme Court. *  As GST enters sixth year, a time for evaluation and reassessment *  There’s GST on daily essentials as Centre needs money to buy MLAs: Arvind Kejriwal *  Now, GST on cancellation of confirmed train tickets, hotel bookings *  GST kitty for top States could rise 20% in FY23, says Crisil *  French customs officials seize another cargo vessel over Russia sanctions *  TradeLens builds on Asia momentum with Pakistan Customs deal *  Hike tax on tobacco, reduce affordability & increase revenue: Civil society organizations to GST council *  Bihar: ?10 crore tax evasion on tobacco products detected in raids *  Centre failed on GST, COVID; would it be anti-national? Rajan on Infosys row *  Service Tax not Chargeable on Income Tax TDS portion paid by recipient: CESTAT grants relief to TVS *  Foreign portfolio investors make net investment of Rs 7575cr in Sep so far
Subject News *  Run-up to Budget: Monetary threshold for GST offences may rise to Rs 25 cr *   GST (Tax) E-invoice Must For Businesses With Over Rs 5 Crore Annual Turnover *   Both Central GST and excise duty can be imposed on tobacco, rules Karnataka high court *   CBIC Issues Clarification On Extended Timelines For GST Compliance *   CBIC Issues Clarification On Extended Timelines For GST Compliance *  Budget 2023- 9.6 crore gas connections *  GST: Tamil Nadu Issues Instructions for Assessment and Adjudication Proceedings *  GST: CBIC Extends Last Date for filing of ITC *  GST collection in September surpasses Rs 1.4 lakh crore for straight seventh time *  Dollar smuggling case: Customs chargesheet names M Sivasankar as key conspirator. *  Hike in GST rates fuels inflation *  Assam: CBI arrests GST commissioner in Guwahati *  GST fraud worth ?824cr by 15 insurance Cos detected *  India proposes 15% customs duties on 22 items imported from UK *  Decriminalising certain offences under GST on cards *  Surge in GST collections more due to higher inflation: India Ratings *  MNRE Notifies BCD and Hike in GST Rates as ‘Change in Law’ Events But With a Condition | Mercom India *   Solar projects awarded before customs duty change allowed cost pass-through *  Rajasthan High Court Dismisses Writ Petitions Challenging Levy Of GST On Royalty *   GST revenue in September likely at Rs 1.45 lakh crore *  Govt working on decriminalising certain offences under GST, lower compounding charge *  Building an institution like GST Council takes time, trashing is easy: Sitharaman *  GST collections in Sept may touch ?1.5 lakh crore *  KTR asks Centre to withdraw GST on handlooms *  After Gameskraft, More Online Gaming Startups To Receive GST Tax Claims *  Madras HC: AAR Application Filed Under VAT Does Not Survive After GST Enactment *  Threshold for criminal offences under GST law may be raised *  Bengaluru: Gaming company faces biggest GST notice of Rs 21,000 crore *  CBIC clarifies Classification of Cranes for GST, Customs Duty *  Customs seize gold hidden in bicycle in Kerala airport  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/CASE LAW/2015-16/2851

Whether service tax payable for period prior to introduction of taxable service?

Case:- R.M. DHARIWAL (HUF) VERSUSCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE-III

Citation:-2015 (39) S.T.R. 635 (Tri. - Mumbai)

Brief Facts:-The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellant herein was charged for not discharging the service tax liability for an amount received by them as royalty from M/s. Dhariwal Industries Ltd. for the use of trade name/brand name on the products which were manufactured and cleared consequent to an agreement dated 20-4-2004. Revenue authorities were of the view that as per the terms and conditions of the above-mentioned agreement, M/s. Dhariwal Industries Ltd. is required to pay royalty to the appellant at a fixed rate of 3% of Net sales on the basis of audited annual reports. On scrutiny of the audited balance sheet for the year ending 31-3-2005, it was noticed that the appellant had issued two invoices for the receipt of the royalty for the period 1-4-2004 to 10-9-2004 and did not discharge the service tax liability. Show cause notice was issued which was adjudicated and demand of the service tax liability was confirmed along with interest and penalties were imposed. Aggrieved by such an order, appellant preferred an appeal before the first appellate authority. The first appellate authority after following due process of law did not agree with the contention raised by the appellant and rejected the appeal.
 
Appellant contentions:- The ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would take through the entire case records. He would submit that the appellant had received royalty from M/s. Dhariwal Industries Ltd. It is his submissions that the question involved in this case is whether the service tax liability would be required to be discharged for the period 1-4-2004 to 10-9-2004 under the category of “Intellectual Property Services”. He would submit that the said services were brought into service tax from 10-9-2004. He would submit that both the lower authorities have incorrectly appreciated the facts, as the service tax liability arises on the appellant even for the royalty amounts, which were paid for the period in question. He would submit that the liability would not arise at least up to 10-9-2004, as the service tax was first time brought into statute under the category of Intellectual Property Services and the benefit of Notification No. 18/2004-S.T., dated 10-9-2004 cannot be called is for help by the department. He would draw our attention to the agreement entered by the appellant with M/s. Dhariwal Industries Ltd. and submit that the royalty which has been paid for the period in question i.e. 1-4-2004 to 10-9-2004 though settled in 2004-2005 and hence only tax net.
 
Respondent contentions:-Ld. AR on the other hand, would draw our attention to the Notification No. 18/2004-S.T. and submit that the said notification specifically states service tax liability would not arise on the appellant to that portion of the value of taxable service which is received by the service provider from the customer prior to 10th day of September, 2004. He would then submit that the balance sheet for the year 2004-2005 was finalized on 8-9-2005 and appellant could be ineligible for the exemption granted by Notification No. 18/2004-S.T. He would reiterate the findings of the lower authorities.
 
Reasoning of Judgment:- We have considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records.
The issue to be decided in this case is whether the amounts received by the appellant for the period 1-4-2004 to 10-9-2004 would be covered under the service tax net under the category of “Intellectual Property Services” or otherwise. It is undisputed that the amount which has been received by the appellant during material period in question was as royalty for the use of the brand which is registered in the name of the appellant assessee.
We peruse the agreement entered by the appellant with M/s. Dhariwal Industries Ltd. The said agreement assigned brand/trade name to M/s. Dhariwal Industries Ltd. for a period of 4 years i.e. 20-4-2004 to 31-3-2008, specific articles of the said agreement, which need to be read is the consideration to be paid by M/s. Dhariwal Industries Ltd. to the appellant. We reproduce the same.
“The considerations for the use of trade-name “RMD”, the Second Party shall pay Royalty from 20th April, 2004 to 31st March, 2008, i.e. for a further period of 4 years, and shall be paid at Percentages of the Net Total Sales every year as stated hereunder :

 
For the year
Per cent Net Sales
20-4-2004 to 31-3-2005 3% of Net Sales
1-4-2005 to 31-3-2006 3% of Net Sales
1-4-2006 to 31-3-2007 3% of Net Sales
1-4-2007 to 31-3-2008 3% of Net Sales

The Net Sales shall include all indigenous Sales, Exports Sales [including Sales to RMD (HUF)].
(3)DIL shall render to RMD (HUF) the audited annual reports following the close of each financial year, on the basis of which royalties are payable under this agreement. DIL shall pay to RMD (HUF) the amount of Royalty payable within 3 months from audited annual reports.”
It can be noticed from the above reproduced articles of the agreement, the royalty which are paid from 20-4-2004 to 10-9-2004 were done so after calculating the correct sales turnover on finalization of the balance sheet on 8-9-2005. It is undisputed that during the period, no service tax was leviable on Intellectual Property Services, as the said services came into the statute w.e.f. 10-9-2004.
In Tribunal’s considered view, both the lower authorities have erred in coming to a conclusion that appellant is liable to pay the service tax. In Tribunal’s view, if amount which is paid for as royalty and remains undisputed, the said amount of royalty cannot be covered under the Intellectual Property Service which came into tax net from 10-9-2004. It is seen from the records that the lower authorities have sought to recover the service tax liability from the appellant by invoking the provisional collection of tax to hold that service tax liability arises. In Tribunal’s view, this is incorrect, at least, in respect of service tax liability, as in the case of service tax liability on any new services; it comes into effect only from the date which is notified by the Central Government by notification. In the case in hand, it is undisputed that the notification which was issued for taxing an amount paid as royalty under Intellectual Property Service was w.e.f. 10-9-2004. If that be so, service tax liability would not arise on the amount received by the appellant during the period 20-4-2004 to 10-9-2004.
 
Decision:-  Appeal allowed.   

Comment:-The analogy of the case is that as the service tax under the category of ‘Intellectual Property Rights Service’ came effect from 10-09-2004, no service tax could be demanded on the provision of said service prior to 10.09.2004. In the case of service tax liability on anynew services,it comes into effect only from the date which is notified by theCentral Government bynotification and not prior to date when notification does not exist.

Prepared By:- Anash Kachaliya
 
 
 

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