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 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