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/2015-16/2965

Whether Spare parts sold by a service station during servicing of vehicle are liable to ST?

Case:-SEVA AUTOMOTIVE PVT. LTD. VersusCOMMISSIONER OF C. EX., NAGPUR

Citation:-2015 (37) S.T.R. 747 (Tri. - Mumbai)

Brief Facts:-The appellant, M/s. Seva Automotive Pvt. Ltd. are engaged in the business of providing services of Authorized Service Station for Maruti brand vehicles and they are also registered with department under the category of “Authorized Service Station” and “Business Auxiliary Service”. During the course of rendering the services, the appellant also sells spare parts for the vehicles on which they discharge Sales Tax/VAT liability. The bills issued by the appellant gives details of spare parts sold both in terms of quantity and value and also the service charges for the services rendered. The VAT/Sales Tax liability on the spare parts sold is also separately indicated and the Service Tax liability on the services rendered is also separately indicated. The department was of the view that the appellant is liable to discharge Service Tax liability on the whole of the amount charged and not on the services portion alone. Accordingly, a show cause notice dated 13-10-2011 was issued to the appellant demanding Service Tax of Rs. 3,55,36,207/- for the period 2006-07 to 2010-11. Interest on the said amount was also demanded and there was also a proposal for imposition of penalty under the provisions of Finance Act, 1994. The cost of spares parts was taken from the balance sheets of the appellants. The notice was adjudicated. The appellant contested that they are not liable to pay Service Tax on the goods sold to the customers and, therefore, inclusion of the same in the value of the taxable service is not sustainable in law. The contention of the appellant was not accepted and demand was confirmed along with interest and by imposing penalty. Aggrieved of the said decision, the appellant is before them.

Appellant’s Contention:-The learned Counsel for the appellant makes the following submissions:-
(i) Service Tax is liable to be discharged on the services rendered. In the course of rendering the services, when goods are sold on which Sales Tax/VAT liability is discharged, the cost of such goods cannot be included in the taxable value of the services rendered. There may be some transactions, which involve only sale of spare parts without rendering of the service. In those cases, the levy of Service Tax would not arise at all. In the bills raised, the appellant has clearly indicated the quantity and value of the goods sold and the Sales Tax/VAT liability discharged. They have also indicated the charges collected for the services rendered and the Service Tax liability thereon. Therefore, only the consideration received for the services rendered is liable to Service Tax.
(ii) Learned Counsel further submits that this Tribunal, in more or less circumstances, in the cases of Ketan Motors Ltd. [2014 (33)S.T.R.165 (T)] vide Order No. A/321/2013/CSTB/C-I, dated 18-2-2013 and Sudarshan Motors - Order No. A/493/2013/CSTB/C-I, dated 25-2-2013 have remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration on the ground that the adjudicating authority has not considered the contention of the appellant for exclusion of the cost of the goods sold during the course of the transaction.
(iii) Learned Counsel also relies on the Board’s Master Circular Ref. No. 036.03, dated 23-8-2007, wherein the Board had clarified as follows :-

Issue   Clarification
Whether spare parts sold by a service station during the servicing of vehicles is liable to payment of service tax?   Service Tax is not leviable on a transaction treated as sale of goods and subjected to levy of Sales Tax/VAT.

In the light of the above, Learned Counsel pleads that the stay be granted and the matter be remanded back to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration.

Respondent’s Contention:- The learned Addl. Commissioner (AR) appearing for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the adjudicating authority.

Reasoning of judgement:-After hearing both the sides, they find that the issue involved herein is identical to the cases decided by the Tribunal in the case of Ketan Motors Ltd. and Sudarshan Motors (cited supra). In those decisions, the Tribunal had held that the cost of spare parts sold during the rendering of service cannot form part of the transaction value. The Board’s Circular dated 23-8-2007 also confirms the above position. Therefore, they remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority for consideration afresh of the contention of the appellant that the cost of spare parts sold cannot be included in the value of the services rendered. The appellant is also directed to submit all documents and evidences in support of their claim that they have discharged Sales Tax/VAT on the spare parts sold during the course of rendering the service.

Decision:- Thus, the appeal is allowed by way of remand. The stay application is also disposed of.

Comment:-The crux of the case is that when spare parts are sold by a service station during servicing of vehicle, service tax would be liable only on the amount related to services rendered and not on spare parts sold. Therefore in the present case appeal is allowed on the ground that that cost of spare parts sold cannot be included in value of services rendered.
 
Submitted By:- Somya Jain
 

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