Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Dept. Can’t Classify Product as Zarda Scented Tobacco After Repeatedly Approving It As Chewing Tobacco: CESTAT *  Mere Uploading Of GST Order On Portal Is Not “Valid” Service: Tripura HC *  CGST Can Proceed Even If SGST Closed Similar Case Earlier: Delhi HC *  SC upholds 28% GST on online gaming with retrospective effect. *  West Bengal Govt cuts E-way Bill Threshold limit to Rs. 50,000 for intra-state goods movement. *  Criminal Prosecution Under Central Excise Act Can’t Continue After CESTAT Sets Aside Duty Demand on Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Orders for Denial of Personal Hearing; Remands Matter Subject to 10% Deposit *  Ex Parte GST Order: Madras High Court Directs Immediate Removal of Bank/ITC Attachment Upon 25% Deposit *  J.K. Cement Receives GST Demand Order of Rs 8,02,113/- from Ahmedabad Tax Authority *  Delhi Police EOW Busts Alleged Rs. 128 Crore GST Fake Invoice Network. *  REPLY TO SCN CAN’T BE TREATED AS “EMPTY FORMALITY”: ORISSA HIGH COURT QUASHES GST DEMAND OF RS. 57.30 LAKH *  Challenge to CGST Provisions restricting ITC to Bonafide Purchasers : Allahabad HC issues notice *  CBIC Notifies Revised Customs Tariff Values for Edible Oils, Gold, Silver, Brass Scrap and Areca Nuts *  Delhi HC Orders Removal of GST Attachment After Statutory 1 Year Period Expired *  GSTAT Extends Relaxed Appeal Filing Guidelines till December 31, 2026 *  AO fails to Provide Import - Export Data from DGFT to Taxpayer for Reconciliation *  Gold, Silver Imports To Get Costlier As Govt Raises Customs Duty To 10%  *  GSTAT Enables Pre-Payment Access to Document Upload and Checklist for GST Appeal Filing *  GST Portal Restrictions Can’t Override Statute: Gujarat HC Allows Cross-State Transfer Of CGST ITC After Amalgamation *  Centre Revises HS Codes for Large Diameter Steel Pipes Used in Oil & Gas Pipelines *  Customs Duty Liability Arises On Warehouse Clearance Date: Supreme Court *  Government lifts export ban on de-oiled rice bran *  CESTAT Grants 12% Interest on Pre-Deposit for Investigation from Date of Deposit till Refund and Denies Interest on Interest. *  Government Overhauls GST Classification Framework for Non-Alcoholic Beverages; Fruit Juice Drinks, Milk-Based Beverages and Caffeinated Drinks to Attract Revised 5% and 40% GST Rates from May 1, 2026 *  India’s gross GST collections hit a record Rs 2.42 lakh crore in April, up 8.7% *  Customs clearance stalled, revenue hit over MRP dispute *  Shipping Corporation explores Middle East routes as Hormuz tensions disrupt cargo movement *  India, Kenya signs MoU for exchange of pre-arrival customs information *  No demand of Taxes under Reverse Charge if Tax Already Discharged by Service Provider under forward charge *  The India-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement, signed "once-in-a-generation" deal that eliminates tariffs on 100% of Indian exports to New Zealand
Subject News *  Consignment Sales Can’t Be Reclassified as Inter-State Sales Based on Pre-Agreement Evidence: CESTAT *  Exporter Can’t Be Denied Advance Authorization Benefit Due To ICEGATE Technical Glitch: Delhi High Court *  No GST Demand For Mere Wrong Set-Off Of IGST Credit Under CGST And SGST Heads: Kerala HC. *  Cenvat Credit Can’t Be Denied on Input Services Having Nexus With Manufacturing Activities: CESTAT *  Pending Proceedings Can’t Survive Without Saving Clause: Calcutta High Court Quashes GST Demand of Rs. 6.28 Crore After Omission of Rule 96(10) *  Madras HC Quashes GST Demands on TASMAC (Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation) Bar Licence Fee *  GST Proceedings Cannot Survive Omitted Rule Without Saving Clause: Calcutta HC *  Provisional Release Can’t Be Denied Solely On Dept. Suspicion Of Misclassification And Undervaluation Of Imported Goods: CESTAT *  Businesses Should Not Be Kept Outside GST Regime Without Due Process: Gauhati High Court *  Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Reconsideration of Contractors’ Claim for Additional GST Payment After Tax Rate Hike From 12% to 18% *  S. 108 Statements Can’t Be Sole Basis Without Following Section 138B Procedure: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Frames Key Questions on Mandatory Distribution of ITC U/s 20 CGST Act *  Filing of Annexure-B for Refund Applications involving Accumulated ITC using the offline utility in GST portal: GSTN *  No Service Tax on Parent Company’s Un-Invoiced Cost Allocations Without Actual Service or Consideration: CESTAT  *  Calcutta High Court Upholds GST Classification of Polypropylene Leno Bags as Plastic Products *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  GSTAT Issues Major Bench Allocation Framework; All Appeals to First Go Before Division Bench *  ITC Blocking Without Reasoned Order Violates Rule 86A; Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Release of Credit *  Allahabad HC Refuses Bail to CGST Superintendent In Rs. 70 Lakh Bribery Case *  S.130 Can’t Be Invoked Without Prior Tax Determination U/s 73/74: Allahabad High Court Quashes GST Confiscation Proceedings *  SC grants Bail to Rs 54cr GST case  *  Karnataka HC Sets Aside Duplicate GST Orders, Orders Fresh Hearing on GSTIN Cancellation *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  Transfer Of Unutilized ITC After Amalgamation - Supreme Court Issues Notice *  PUNJAB & HARYANA HC QUASHES GST CANCELLATION NOTICE FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE CBIC ENQUIRY REPORT *  LICENSE FEE, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CHARGES NOT INCLUDIBLE IN CUSTOMS VALUE UNLESS THEY ARE A CONDITION OF SALE: CESTAT *  DELHI HC ORDERS REMOVAL OF GST ATTACHMENT AFTER STATUTORY 1 YEAR PERIOD EXPIRED *  CUSTOMS BROKER CAN’T BE FAULTED JUST BECAUSE EXPORTER’S GST REGISTRATION WAS PREVIOUSLY CANCELLED: CESTAT   *  Supreme Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Delhi HC Ruling Holding Real Operator Behind Fake GST Firms Liable As ‘Taxable Person  *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected Merely Because DRC-07 Was Not Uploaded On Portal: Bombay High Court  

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