Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  GST registration cancellation without reasons amounts to ‘Economic Death’ of business: Supreme Court. *  No GST refund if appeal before GSTAT is filed late: Gujarat High Court. *  Mere upload of GST notice on portal not valid service, appeal limitation won’t start: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Taxpayer can’t be penalised for missing notices hidden under ‘Additional Notices/Orders’: Calcutta High Court allows fresh adjudication. *  State tax officer can’t issue GST SCN beyond CBIC-assigned jurisdiction: Bombay High Court stays recovery proceedings. *  Earlier 7.5% Pre-Deposit must count towards mandatory 10% for Appeal: Uttarakhand high court quashes CESTAT Order. *  Third Parties can’t challenge GST Advance Rulings merely due to financial impact: Karnataka HC *  GST SCN generated using AI tool quashed: Punjab & Haryana High Court *  Bank Attachment Quashed as Madras HC Quashes GST Order Issued Against Deceased Person *  ITC Blocking Order for Failure to Record ‘Reason to Believe’ U/R 86A Quashed: Allahabad High Court *  Govt Extends GSTAT Appeal Filing Deadline From 30 June to July 31, 2026 *  GST Demand on RWA Stayed: Allahabad High Court Questions Taxability of Electricity Distribution to Flat Owners *  CBIC Clarifies Jurisdiction After GST Registration Transfer: Earlier Proceedings Remain Valid, New Officer to Continue Action *  GST authorities’ certification not mandatory for reimbursement, but tax payment must be proven: Karnataka HC *  Contractor can’t seek gst reimbursement through writ when contract has arbitration clause: Karnataka HC *  Unsigned Order Is No Order in Law: AP HC Quashes GST Assessment Order for Want of Officer’s Signature *  Customs Can’t Levy Rs. 1.36 Crore Cost Recovery Charges Without Proof of Full-Day Officer Deployment: CESTAT  *  12% IGST Payable On Imported Dialysis Machine Parts: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Admits Challenge to GST Limitation Extension Notifications; Grants Protection Against Coercive Recovery *  Criminal Case Can’t Run Parallel to GST Proceedings on Same Facts: Allahabad High Court *  Allahabad High Court Stays GST Detention Order; Directs Release of Vehicle and Goods on Deposit of Rs. 1.44 Lakh *  Service Tax Can’t Be Levied on Loss-Making Contracts: Gujarat High Court *  GSTN Mandates Ship-to GSTIN in e-Invoice and e-Way Bill APIs; Introduces Voluntary e-Way Bill Closure Facility from August 1, 2026 *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred When Taxpayer Was Pursuing Rectification Remedy: Telangana High Court *  Absence of E-Way Bill and Transport Documents Justifies Customs Seizure U/s 110: Gauhati HC *  Madras High Court Upholds GST Late Fee and Penalty for Non-Filing of Annual Return, Dismisses Challenge  *  GST Records, Purchase Documents Sufficient to Discharge Burden Under Customs Act: CESTAT Orders Release of 3.65 Kg Gold  *  No Sugar Cess Payable on Sugar Exported Out of India: CESTAT *  Road Construction Services Exempt and SCN Time-Barred: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Based Solely on Form 26AS  *  ITC Freeze Upheld After GST Dept Find Suppliers Were Allegedly Fake Bill-Trading Entities: Madras HC 
Subject News *  Input service benefits can’t be denied: CESTAT allows export refund despite MMTC acting as Canalising agency. *  No service tax demand without proof of service of SCN: CESTAT. *  Service tax demand quashed as dept. fails to prove service of SCN: CESTAT *  GST : Mere allegation of inadequate consideration of reply not enough to invoke writ jurisdiction: Delhi High Court *  Onerous conditions imposed for provisional release of seized imported goods shouldn’t amount to virtual denial of relief: CESTAT. *  GST SCN without alleging fraud cannot invoke sec. 74: Karnataka High Court quashes adjudication order. *  Extended Limitation Can’t Be Invoked Merely on Form 26AS Data: CESTAT *  Revenue-Sharing with Restaurants Not Taxable as Business Support Service: CESTAT *  R. 6(3) Option Can’t Be Forced on Taxpayer; CESTAT Quashes Rs. 12.36 Crore CENVAT Credit Demand *  Excise Duty | Power Consumption Alone Can’t Prove Clandestine Manufacture: Karnataka High Court *  Madras High Court Examines DGGI’s Authority to Issue GST Penalty Orders Under Section 122, Adds DGGI as Party *  Proceedings under omitted r. 96(10) can’t survive without saving clause: andhra pradesh high court quashes gst refund recovery *  Excise duty power consumption alone can’t prove clandestine manufacture: karnataka high court *  Madras high court rules GST show cause notices must disclose grounds for invoking extended limitation *  Court Can’t Direct Extension GST Return Deadlines or Waive Interest and Penalties: Karnataka High Court *  GST Notifications Can’t Go Beyond GST Council Recommendations: Madras High Court Quashes SCN on Branded Pulses *  Appeal Can’t Be Dismissed for Delay When Dept’s Own Order Mis-states Limitation Period: CESTAT *  No Evidence of KYC or Due Diligence Breach By Customs Broker: CESTAT Quashes Licence Revocation in Export Overvaluation Case *  Glucometers Are Chemical Analysis Instruments Classifiable Under Tariff Heading 9027: CESTAT *  Validity of Post-GST Service Tax Proceedings Upheld: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Challenge to S. 73 SCN *  Rectified GST Refund Applications Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred If Original Refund Claim Was Filed Within Limitation: Gujarat HC *  Service Tax Refund Can’t Be Denied as Time-Barred When Levy Itself Is Unconstitutional: Gujarat High Court *  Same Officer Can’t Act As Auditor & Adjudicator: Karnataka High Court *  Karnataka High Court Condones 324-Day Delay, Revives Customs Appeal in Jewellery Pilferage Case  *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Order Passed Ex Parte Despite Prior ITC Reversal; Lifts Bank Attachment *  Tobacco Process Doesn’t Amount to Manufacturing: Madras High Court Quashes Rs. 1.32 Crore Compensation Cess Demand  *  Recovery Notice Unsustainable After Voluntary Reversal of Unutilised Credit: CESTAT  *  GST | ‘System Generated’ SCN Without Officer Details Invalid: Allahabad HC  *  Electronic Records Without Statutory Certification Requirements Can’t Justify Undervaluation Allegations: CESTAT *  Madras High Court Stays GST Order, Finds Prima Facie Merit in Plea Against S. 74 Proceedings Based on S. 73 Intimation  

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