Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Dept. Can’t Classify Product as Zarda Scented Tobacco After Repeatedly Approving It As Chewing Tobacco: CESTAT *  Mere Uploading Of GST Order On Portal Is Not “Valid” Service: Tripura HC *  CGST Can Proceed Even If SGST Closed Similar Case Earlier: Delhi HC *  SC upholds 28% GST on online gaming with retrospective effect. *  West Bengal Govt cuts E-way Bill Threshold limit to Rs. 50,000 for intra-state goods movement. *  Criminal Prosecution Under Central Excise Act Can’t Continue After CESTAT Sets Aside Duty Demand on Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Orders for Denial of Personal Hearing; Remands Matter Subject to 10% Deposit *  Ex Parte GST Order: Madras High Court Directs Immediate Removal of Bank/ITC Attachment Upon 25% Deposit *  J.K. Cement Receives GST Demand Order of Rs 8,02,113/- from Ahmedabad Tax Authority *  Delhi Police EOW Busts Alleged Rs. 128 Crore GST Fake Invoice Network. *  REPLY TO SCN CAN’T BE TREATED AS “EMPTY FORMALITY”: ORISSA HIGH COURT QUASHES GST DEMAND OF RS. 57.30 LAKH *  Challenge to CGST Provisions restricting ITC to Bonafide Purchasers : Allahabad HC issues notice *  CBIC Notifies Revised Customs Tariff Values for Edible Oils, Gold, Silver, Brass Scrap and Areca Nuts *  Delhi HC Orders Removal of GST Attachment After Statutory 1 Year Period Expired *  GSTAT Extends Relaxed Appeal Filing Guidelines till December 31, 2026 *  AO fails to Provide Import - Export Data from DGFT to Taxpayer for Reconciliation *  Gold, Silver Imports To Get Costlier As Govt Raises Customs Duty To 10%  *  GSTAT Enables Pre-Payment Access to Document Upload and Checklist for GST Appeal Filing *  GST Portal Restrictions Can’t Override Statute: Gujarat HC Allows Cross-State Transfer Of CGST ITC After Amalgamation *  Centre Revises HS Codes for Large Diameter Steel Pipes Used in Oil & Gas Pipelines *  Customs Duty Liability Arises On Warehouse Clearance Date: Supreme Court *  Government lifts export ban on de-oiled rice bran *  CESTAT Grants 12% Interest on Pre-Deposit for Investigation from Date of Deposit till Refund and Denies Interest on Interest. *  Government Overhauls GST Classification Framework for Non-Alcoholic Beverages; Fruit Juice Drinks, Milk-Based Beverages and Caffeinated Drinks to Attract Revised 5% and 40% GST Rates from May 1, 2026 *  India’s gross GST collections hit a record Rs 2.42 lakh crore in April, up 8.7% *  Customs clearance stalled, revenue hit over MRP dispute *  Shipping Corporation explores Middle East routes as Hormuz tensions disrupt cargo movement *  India, Kenya signs MoU for exchange of pre-arrival customs information *  No demand of Taxes under Reverse Charge if Tax Already Discharged by Service Provider under forward charge *  The India-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement, signed "once-in-a-generation" deal that eliminates tariffs on 100% of Indian exports to New Zealand
Subject News *  Consignment Sales Can’t Be Reclassified as Inter-State Sales Based on Pre-Agreement Evidence: CESTAT *  Exporter Can’t Be Denied Advance Authorization Benefit Due To ICEGATE Technical Glitch: Delhi High Court *  No GST Demand For Mere Wrong Set-Off Of IGST Credit Under CGST And SGST Heads: Kerala HC. *  Cenvat Credit Can’t Be Denied on Input Services Having Nexus With Manufacturing Activities: CESTAT *  Pending Proceedings Can’t Survive Without Saving Clause: Calcutta High Court Quashes GST Demand of Rs. 6.28 Crore After Omission of Rule 96(10) *  Madras HC Quashes GST Demands on TASMAC (Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation) Bar Licence Fee *  GST Proceedings Cannot Survive Omitted Rule Without Saving Clause: Calcutta HC *  Provisional Release Can’t Be Denied Solely On Dept. Suspicion Of Misclassification And Undervaluation Of Imported Goods: CESTAT *  Businesses Should Not Be Kept Outside GST Regime Without Due Process: Gauhati High Court *  Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Reconsideration of Contractors’ Claim for Additional GST Payment After Tax Rate Hike From 12% to 18% *  S. 108 Statements Can’t Be Sole Basis Without Following Section 138B Procedure: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Frames Key Questions on Mandatory Distribution of ITC U/s 20 CGST Act *  Filing of Annexure-B for Refund Applications involving Accumulated ITC using the offline utility in GST portal: GSTN *  No Service Tax on Parent Company’s Un-Invoiced Cost Allocations Without Actual Service or Consideration: CESTAT  *  Calcutta High Court Upholds GST Classification of Polypropylene Leno Bags as Plastic Products *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  GSTAT Issues Major Bench Allocation Framework; All Appeals to First Go Before Division Bench *  ITC Blocking Without Reasoned Order Violates Rule 86A; Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Release of Credit *  Allahabad HC Refuses Bail to CGST Superintendent In Rs. 70 Lakh Bribery Case *  S.130 Can’t Be Invoked Without Prior Tax Determination U/s 73/74: Allahabad High Court Quashes GST Confiscation Proceedings *  SC grants Bail to Rs 54cr GST case  *  Karnataka HC Sets Aside Duplicate GST Orders, Orders Fresh Hearing on GSTIN Cancellation *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  Transfer Of Unutilized ITC After Amalgamation - Supreme Court Issues Notice *  PUNJAB & HARYANA HC QUASHES GST CANCELLATION NOTICE FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE CBIC ENQUIRY REPORT *  LICENSE FEE, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CHARGES NOT INCLUDIBLE IN CUSTOMS VALUE UNLESS THEY ARE A CONDITION OF SALE: CESTAT *  DELHI HC ORDERS REMOVAL OF GST ATTACHMENT AFTER STATUTORY 1 YEAR PERIOD EXPIRED *  CUSTOMS BROKER CAN’T BE FAULTED JUST BECAUSE EXPORTER’S GST REGISTRATION WAS PREVIOUSLY CANCELLED: CESTAT   *  Supreme Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Delhi HC Ruling Holding Real Operator Behind Fake GST Firms Liable As ‘Taxable Person  *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected Merely Because DRC-07 Was Not Uploaded On Portal: Bombay High Court  

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