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/2015-16/2965

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