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/2012-13/1343

Whether the appellant is an association for the purpose of liability of service tax and eligible for exemption?

 
Case: -  VAPI WASTE AND EFFLUENT MANAGEMENT CO.  VERSUS COMMR. OF C.EX, DAMAN

Citation: - 2012 (28) S.T.R. 356 (Tri-Ahmd.)

Brief fact: - The Appellant company has been incorporated in the year 1997, consequent upon the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat for the purpose of taking over the responsibility of operation of Common Effluent Treatment Plant from Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation (GIDC) for the purpose of treating the effluent discharged by the industries located in the GIDC area, Vapi. The industrial units located in the Vapi industrial area discharging hazardous effluents are compulsorily required to become a member of the appellant association for the purpose of getting their hazardous effluents treated in their plant as per the norms prescribed by GPCB (Gujarat Pollution Control Board). Appellant charges one time payment for providing the service and also charge from industrial units on monthly basis on the estimated cost of operation of the effluent treatment facility.
 On the ground that the applicant is an association of operating units of GIDC Vapi and the appellant association is providing services after charging subscription from the members is liable to pay service tax on the service provided by the appellant to the members under the category of club or association services, proceedings were initiated after detailed investigation and inquiry which has resulted in to the impugned order wherein demand of service tax of Rs. 3,26,39,335/- with interest have been confirmed and penalty equal to the amount of service tax demanded have been imposed under Section 78 of Finance Act, 1994.

Appellant Contention: - The learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that with the introduction of Section 145 in the Finance Act, 2012, the services provided by club or association in relation to common facilities set up for treatment and recycling effluent and solid waste with the financial assistance from the Central Government or State Government have been given exemption with retrospective effect from 16-6-2005. The period involved in the dispute is covered by the provision of Finance Act, 2012 and therefore the demand is not sustainable.

Respondent Contention:-   The respondent submitted that appellant is not an association but a limited company and therefore is not covered by the exemption with retrospective effect. Only club or association including registered co-operative society is covered. Therefore the impugned order has to be upheld.
 
Reasoning of Judgment:- The Tribunal held that the relevant definition of club or association of the taxable service is defined under Clause (25a) of Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994 as amended by the Finance Act, 2005. The definition as on 16-6-2005 reads as under :-
 
"Club or association" means any person or body of persons providing services, facilities or advantages, for a subscription or any other amount, to its members, but does not include -
 
(i)            Any body established or constituted by or under any law for the time being in force; or
(ii)           Any person or body of persons engaged in the activity of trade unions, promotion of agriculture, horticulture or animal husbandry; or
(iii)          Any person or body of persons engaged in any activity having objectives which are in the nature of public service and are of a charitable, religious or political nature; or (iv) Any person or body of persons associated with press or media;
 
 6.2 Clause 105(zzze) of Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994 as amended defines taxable service means any service provided or to be provided to its members, by any club or association in relation to provision of services, facilities or advantages for a subscription or any other amount."
 
At the time when the impugned order was passed, there was no exemption notification for the services rendered by the appellant. Therefore Revenue had submitted that the activities in question were not covered by the club or association service. It was further submitted by them that being a statutory body they are covered by the exclusion in the definition. Thereafter the appellant approached the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat also and the petition filed by the appellant is still pending with the Hon'ble High Court who has directed the appellant to approach Central Government. Subsequently Notification No. 42/2011-S.T., dated 25-7-2011 was issued which exempted club or association service provided by an association of dyeing units for treatment and recycling of effluents and solid waste. Notification No. 1/2012- S.T., dated 17-3-2012, the words "of dyeing units" was omitted. Consequent upon amendment made by Notification No. 1/2012-ST., club or association service provided by an association in relation to a common facility set up for treatment and recycling effluent or solid waste is exempted from the service tax. This notification has been given retrospective effect by Section 145 of Finance Act, 2012 from June, 2005. Thus services of collecting subscription from the members for running of common facility for treatment of effluents and solid waste for the benefit of members, rendered by an association have been exempted and given retrospective effect from June, 2005 by Notification and the Finance Act, 2012 discussed above and therefore the appellant is squarely covered by the exemption Notification and the activities undertaken by them is not liable to Service Tax.
 
The Tribunal further considered the submission of both the sides wherein learned A.R.(Respondent) submitted that the appellant company being a limited company is not covered by the term association and exemption available is only to the association. However, it was pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is registered under Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956 which provides that the word "limited" can be dispensed with in respect of an association formed as a limited company for promoting commerce, art, science, religion, charity or any other object and therefore the character of the company being an association does not change just because they are registered as a company. In view of the above submission Tribunal find that the learned A.R. cannot take up this argument at this stage. Since the demand on appellant was confirmed on the ground that the appellant is an association of members and it was collecting subscription.
 
In view of the clear cut stand taken by the revenue and also in view of the submission about the statute made by the learned counsel, tribunal hold that the appellant is an association for the purpose of liability of service tax and eligible for exemption. Since appellant is eligible for exemption on merits, the appeal and the impugned order confirming the demand of duty and imposition of penalty is set aside.
 
Decision:- Appeal disposed off
 
Comment:- This is yet another hilarious case wherein the department had confirmed demand on  the assessee considering it as an association/club but when retrospective exemption was granted to association then the department objected availment of exemption by the assessee by contending that the assessee is not an association.  

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