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 Laws/2012-13/1133

Whether the activity undertaken by the applicant falls under the category of ‘Management Consultancy Service' or not?
Case: THE INDIAN HOTELS CO LTD V/S COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, MUMBAI-II
 
Citation: 2012-TIOL781-CESTAT-MUM
 
Issue:- whether the activity undertaken by the applicant falls under the category of ‘Management Consultancy Service' or not?
 
Brief Facts: - The applicants are seeking waiver of pre-deposit of service tax of Rs.4,85,98,345/- along with interest and various penalties under the Finance Act, 1994, confirmed against them by the impugned order under the category of ‘Management Consultancy Service'.
 
The applicants are running business of hotels in the name of M/s Indian Hotels Company Ltd. (IHCL). M/s Lokhandwala Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (LHL) was running a hotel in the name of ‘Regent Hotel' which is situated at Bandra. As the said hotel was incurring losses and there was a huge demand against them of about Rs.331 crores from various persons and of about Rs.95 crores from ICICI Trustship Services Ltd., the hotel business of ‘Regent Hotel' was acquired by the applicants. An agreement was entered into between the applicants, LHL and ICICI Trustship Services Ltd. as ICICI was ready to pay the loans of various other parties payable by LHL to the tune of Rs.331 Crores for settlement of repayment of loans and transaction of transfer of the ownership right to the applicants. Therefore, as per the agreement, the share of the ICICI Trustship Services Ltd. was 80.1% and the share of the applicant was 19.9% and new Company was formed and named as ‘Taj Lands End Ltd'. As per the said agreement, the applicants have taken over the activities of the hotels such as develop, conduct, operate, manage, renovate, modernize and carry out all activities of incidental and ancillary business to the business of hotelering or otherwise. As per the said agreement, M/s LHL was entitled for share of the profit on the basis of gross operational profits.
 
By going through the various clauses of the agreement and particularly sharing of the profit, the department was of the view that the activity undertaken by the applicant falls under the category of ‘Management Consultancy Service'. Therefore, a show-cause notice dated 23.04.2008 was issued for demanding service tax for the period 01.10.2002 to 31.03.2006. The show-cause notice was adjudicated and the same was converted into impugned demands.
 
Appellant’s Contention: - The appellants contended that they are engaged in the activity of running and managing the Hotel and they are not engaged in any Consultancy to LHL. Therefore, their activity does not cover under ‘Management Consultancy Service'. In support of his contention he placed reliance on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Basti Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. vs. CCE Allahabad – 2007(7)STR 431(T) = (2007-TIOL-657-CESTAT-DEL) which was confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide 2012 (25) STR J154 (SC). Appeallant also relied on the decision in the case of Nirulas Corner House Pvt. Ltd. 2007(14)STR 131(Tri) = (2009-TIOL-130-CESTAT-DEL) and therefore, prayed that during the pendency of the appeal, stay be granted against the impugned demand.
 
He further submitted that the show-cause notice has been issued by invoking the extended period of limitation is in dispute. Therefore, being an issue of interpretation, extended period is not invokable.
 
Respondent’s Contention: - The respondents drew attention to the agreement particularly, on the clause of consideration received by the applicants. As per the said clause, the applicants shall share the profits of the Hotel run by them but they are not sharing the losses incurred by the Hotel and the same shall be borne by ICICI Trustship Services Ltd. As the applicants are not sharing the losses and they are managing operation of the Hotel, therefore, they are covered under the definition of ‘Management Consultancy Service'. As the applicants are managing by themselves, directly or indirectly, in connection with the Management of the Hotel, the activity undertaken by the applicants is covered under the category of ‘Management Consultancy Service' and the adjudicating authority has rightly confirmed the demands against the applicants.
 
With regard to the limitation, he submits that the definition of ‘Management Consultancy Service' is clearly spells out that the activity of managing itself is relate to both strategic and operational level functioning of the Hotel and falls under the category of ‘Management Consultancy Service'. As the applicants themselves a managing force of the Hotels, therefore, the extended period has rightly been invoked by the adjudicating authority.
 
 
Reasoning of Judgment: - The Hon’ble Tribunal held that on going through the definition of ‘Management Consultancy Service', it is clear that a person who is engaged in providing any service in connection with the management of any organization which means he should provide a service for managing the day to day affairs of the organization. If he himself is managing the affairs of the organization, prima facie, it does not fall under the ‘Management Consultancy Service'. The issue was dealt by this Tribunal in the case of Basti Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. (supra) wherein they held that “the appellant engaged in sugar manufacture took over management of another sugar mill. The agreement was treated as management consultancy and service tax demanded. The agreement was interred entrusting operation of factory and not for advice or consultancy. The advisory service of consultant is necessary for taxability. Appellant being in charge of operation of factory was performing management functions. The activity was not falling within the scope of taxable service. Further, they have also gone through the various clauses of the agreement which was confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court also and they find that the applicants have taken over the activities of managing/running the Hotel themselves. Therefore, prima facie, they are of the view that the applicants are not a ‘Management Consultant” in the light of above discussion and reliance of the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Basti Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. (supra). Therefore, the demand under the category of ‘Management Consultancy Service' is not sustainable.
Decision: - The appeal was allowed.
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