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/2012-13/1338

Whether the ancillary services provided in respect of installation of meters at the premises of electricity consumers be covered by exemption?


Case:- Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Versus Commr. Of C. Ex., Meerut
 
Citation:- 2012 (28) S.T.R. 412 (Tri. – Del.)

Brief Facts:-The appellant assessee is engaged in the purchase of electricity from Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. and transmitting it to various consumers within its jurisdiction. The department pursuant to the intelligence came to know that apart from transmission of electricity, the appellant assessee was also engaged in the business of "erection, commissioning and installation" as also "technical testing and analysis" which according to the department, were subject to levy of service tax in terms of provisions of Finance Act, 1994. During the enquiry, the appellant assessee furnished balance sheets for the year 2003-04 and 2004-05 which revealed that income of the appellant assessee comprised of revenue from, sale of power, subsidies, grants and other income. The department was of the view that the income shown under the head "other income" in the balance sheet for the relevant financial years was in respect of amounts received by the assessee appellant for providing taxable service i.e. "erection, commissioning and installation" as also "technical testing and analysis". Accordingly, based on profit and loss statement, the appellant assessee was served with show cause notice raising demand of service tax for the period 2003-04 and 2004-05. The appellant contested the show cause notice and claiming that the income shown in the statement of account for the years 2003-04 and 2004-05 under the head "other income" comprised of - (a) Interest on loan to staff (b) Delayed payment charged from customer (c) Other income for the year 2003-04 was Nil but for the year 2004-05, interest from banks and discount/rebate received for timely payments of loans. (d) Income from contractors/suppliers. (e) Rental income charges from the staff (f) Excess found of physical verification of stores (g) Miscellaneous receipts which is for the year 2003-04. (h) Miscellaneous receipt which is for the year 2004-05. On merits the appellant also raised the plea of limitation on the ground that there was no justification for invoking extended period of five years. The jurisdictional Commissioner vide the impugned order dropped substantial portion of the demand raised vide show cause notice for confirmed service tax demand with interest against the appellant and also imposed penalty under Section 76 and further penalty of same amount under Section 78 and further penalty of Rs. 1,000/- under section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Appellant has challenged the demand confirmed by impugned order-in-original as also penalty imposed on the ground that the appellant assessee is not engaged in the business or activity which may call for levy of service tax.
 
 
Appellant Contentions:-The appellant has relied upon the Notification No. 45/2010-S.T., and submitted that vide this notification Central Government has exempted persons engaged in transmission and distribution of electricity from levy of service tax in respect of taxable service relating to transmission and distribution of electricity retrospectively. Thus, it is pleaded that in view of exemption notification, impugned order confirming demand and imposing penalty is not sustainable in law.
 
 
Respondent Contentions:-Respondent submitted that benefit of Notification No. 45/2010-S.T. would be available to the appellant assessee only if it is established that the service on which service tax is levied are related to transmission and distribution of electricity. Respondent further submitted that income under the head "other income" detailed in the statement of account of the assessee relates to the services other than transmission and distribution of electricity as such adjudicating authority has wrongly dropped substantial portion of demand raised vide the show cause notice. Respondent has argued as to allow the appeal preferred by the department and modify the impugned order to confirm the demand raised in show cause notice.
 
 
Reasoning of Judgment:-We have considered the submissions on both the sides. At present, issue for determination in these appeals is whether or not the services provided by the assessee in respect of erection, commissioning and installation as also technical testing and analysis and installation of meters at the premises of electricity consumers would be covered under the exemption benefit provided by Notification No. 45/2010-S.T., dated 20-7-2010.
 
Notification No. 45/2010-S.T., dated 20-7-2010 reads thus :- "Electricity - Exemption to all taxable services relating to transmission of electricity till 26-2-2010 and distribution of electricity till 21-6-2010 Whereas, the Central Government is satisfied that a practice was generally prevalent regarding levy of service tax under section 66 of the Finance Act, 1994, on all taxable services relating to transmission and distribution of electricity provided by the service provider to service receiver, and that all such services were liable to service tax under the said Finance Act, which were not being levied according to the said practice during the period up to 26th day of February, 2010 for all taxable services relating to transmission of electricity, and the period up to 21st day of June, 2010 for all taxable services relating to distribution of electricity; Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 11C of the Central Excise Act, 1944, read with section 83 of the said Finance Act, the Central Government hereby directs that the service tax payable on said taxable services relating to transmission and distribution of electricity provided by the service provider to the service receiver, which was not being levied in accordance with the said practice, shall not be required to be paid in respect of the said taxable services relating to transmission and distribution of electricity during the aforesaid period.”
 
On careful reading of the aforesaid notification we find that this notification exempts the services relating to transmission and distribution of electricity provided by the service provider to the service receiver from the incidence of levy of service tax. Admittedly, the assessee is engaged in transmission and distribution of electricity after purchasing the same from U.P. Power Corporation Limited. Since the assessee is selling electricity to the consumer, in our view to bill the consumer for electricity consumed it is essential to install the electricity meter having capacity to withstand the load provided to the consumer. Thus, any activity or service like erection, commissioning and installation of meters as also technical testing and analysis can easily be termed as the service relating to the transmission and distribution of electricity provided by the service provider to the service receiver. Thus, in our considered view such service, which is subject matter of this appeal, would be squarely covered under the exemption provided under Notification referred to above. We may note that similar view was taken by the coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the matter of M.P. Power Transmission Company Limited v. CCE, Bhopal [2011 (24) S.T.R. 67 (Tri. – Del.)] in relation to interpretation of similar exemption Notification No. 11/2010-S.T., dated 27-2-2010 which is pari materia to the Notification No. 45/2010-S.T., dated 20-7-2010, In view of the discussion above, we do not find any merit in the appeal of the Department which is accordingly dismissed. The appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the demand confirmed by the impugned order is set aside.
 
Decision:- Appeal allowed.
 
Comment:- The analogy drawn from this case is that when the main service of transmission and distribution of electricity is exempted by the notification, then the subsidiary services like errection and installation of electricity meters etc., would also be squarely covered by the said exemption notification.
 

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