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/2015-16/2755

Whether spares used during provision of service includible in taxable value?

Case:-COMMR.OF C.E. &S.T., MEERUT-II VERSUS KRISHNA SWAROOP AGARWAL

Citation: - 2015(37) S.T.R. 647(Tri.- Del.)

Brief facts:- M/s. Ashish automobiles (proprietor Krishna swaroop Agarwal) provided the ‘authorized service station’ service. It was alleged that during the period January 2007 to march 2009 they discharged their service tax liability on the value of gross services but they did not take into account of cost of spare parts or accessories or consumable such as lubricants ,coolants used during the service of the vehicles. Adjudicating authority confirmed the demand amounting toRs.11, 83,832/- along with interest and mandatory penalty. The commissioner (appeals) set aside the said order-in-original on the following grounds.
(i)                    Under section 67 of the finance Act, the taxable value is the gross amount charged for the taxable service.
(ii)                   Even in terms of Notification No. 12/2003-S.T., the value of the goods and material sold by the service provider to the service recipient of service is exempt from service tax .
(iii)                  As per the C.B.E & C Circular No.699/15/2003-CX, dated 5-3-2003 the price charged by the authorised service station for engine oil, gear oil and coolants, etc. is towards the sale of these consumables to the customer. Therefore, the sale of consumable during course of service is akin to sale of parts/ accessories and therefore value of such consumable is not includible in the value of taxable services provided value of such consumables is shown separately.
(iv)                  The respondents had provided to the commissioner (appeals) their assessment orders of the trade tax department , Moradabad, for the financial tear 2006-07 &2007-08 showing sale value of spare parts/ accessories/consumables and it is this value  of which has been taken for computing impugned demand.
 
Appellant’s contention:- The revenue has filled the appeal on the following grounds:
(i)                    Board Circular No. 96/7/2007-S.T.,dated 23-8-2007 (para 36.03) has specifically clarified that service tax is not leviable on a transaction treated as sale of goods and stipulated to levy of sale tax/VAT. Whether given transaction between the service station and the customer is a sale or not, is to be determined taking into account the real nature and material facts of transaction. Payment of VAT/sales tax on a transaction indicates that the said transaction is treated as sale of goods.  
“Any goods used in the course of providing service are to be treated as inputs used for providing the service accordingly, cost of such inputs used for providing the service and accordingly, cost of such inputs from integral part of the value of the taxable service”
  Where spare parts are used by service station for servicing of vehicles, service tax should be levied on the spare parts, including the value of spare parts, raised by the service provider, namely, service station. However, the device provider is entitled to take input credit of excise duty paid on such parts or any goods used in providing the service wherein value of such goods used in providing the service wherein value of such goods has been included in the bill. The service provider is also entitled to take input credit of excise duty paid on such parts or any goods used in providing the service wherein value of such goods has been included in the bill. The service provider is also entitled to take input credit of service tax paid on any taxable service for servicing of vehicles.
 
(ii)                   The respondent did not show proof of sale of spare parts to the service recipients.
(iii)                  The Notification No. 12/2003-S.T. is not applicable the value of spare parts to the service recipients.
 
Reasoning of judgment: - The Board circular referred to above in effect actually states that service tax is not leviable on the transaction traded as sale of goods and subjected to levy of sales tax/VAT. It is seen that as recorded by the Commissioner (appeals), respondent were able to establish that amount on which the impugned service tax has been demanded actually pertains to the sale of spare parts/accessories/consumables like lubricants etc. by showing copies of the vat assessment orders for the financial years 2006-07&2007-08. It would clearly entitle them to the benefit of notification No. 12/2003-S.T. Indeed even the provision of section 67 lay down that the value for the purpose of levy of service tax is gross amount charge for taxable service. Thus, we do not find any merit in the revenue’s appeal which is hereby quashed.

Decision:-Appeal dismissed.

Comment:- The gist of the case is that the service tax is payable only on the service charges charged by the authorised service station for servicing of vehicles. The cost of spares and accessories used during the course of providing service is required to be excluded from the taxable value of service because sales tax was paid on such goods which indicates that it is sale of spares and accessories which cannot be leviable to service tax.

Prepared by: Anas 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