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 STUDY/2012-13/15
21 July 2012

Valuation of Service
Introduction:
 
As per notification no. 12/2003 value of the material has to be deducted in case of composite contracts, In the case under study, which pertains to the composite contract involving both sale of food and service element, department seek to levy tax on total value, the assessee was providing Outdoor Catering Services and department wants to levy tax on amount of sale of food as well
COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, BANGALORE v/s LSG SKY CHEF INDIA PVT. LTD.[2012 (27) STR 5 (Kar.)]
 
Relevant Legal Provisions:
 
Section 67.Valuation of taxable services for charging Service tax
 
(1) Subject to the provisions of this Chapter, service tax chargeable on any taxable service with reference to its value shall,—
 
(i) in a case where the provision of service is for a consideration in money, be the gross amount charged by the service provider for such service provided or to be provided by him;
 
(ii) in a case where the provision of service is for a consideration not wholly or partly consisting of money, be such amount in money, with the addition of service tax charged, is equivalent to the consideration;
 
(iii) in a case where the provision of service is for a consideration which is not ascertainable, be the amount as may be determined in the prescribed manner.
 
(2) Where the gross amount charged by a service provider, for the service provided or to be provided is inclusive of service tax payable, the value of such taxable service shall be such amount as, with the addition of tax payable, is equal to the gross amount charged.
 
(3) The gross amount charged for the taxable service shall include any amount received towards the taxable service before, during or after provision of such service.
 
(4) Subject to the provisions of sub-sections (1), (2) and (3), the value shall be determined in such manner as may be prescribed.
 
Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,—
 
(a) “consideration” includes any amount that is payable for the taxable services provided or to be provided;
 
(b) “money” includes any currency, cheque, promissory note, letter of credit, draft, pay order, travelers cheque, money order, postal remittance and other similar instruments but does not include currency that is held for its numismatic value;
 
(c) “gross amount charged” includes payment by cheque, credit card, deduction from account and any form of payment by issue of credit notes or debit notes and [book adjustment, and any amount credited or debited, as the case may be, to any account, whether called “Suspense account” or by any other name, in the books of account of a person liable to pay service tax, where the transaction of taxable service is with any associated enterprise.]] 
 
 
 
 
Brief Facts:
 
-       The assessee is engaged in the activity of providing catering service falling under ‘Outdoor Caterer’ taxable under Section 65(76a) of the Finance Act, 1994. On scrutiny of the records by the Anti Evasion Wing of the Commissionerate, it was revealed that the assessee had not made payment of service tax on the basis of the correct value of the taxable services. The service tax liability had to be paid on the basis of the gross amount collected from the clients after deducting the abatement as per Notification dated 10-9-2004 bearing No. 20/2004-S.T. upto 28-2-2006 and Notification No. 1/2006-S.T., dated 1-3-2006. That the service tax was paid only on a part of the amount collected that is only on the handling and transportation charges, which is in contravention of provisions of Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994.
 
-       The assessee received an amount of Rs. 6,35,80,011/- from the Airlines for In-flight catering from 1-4-2006 to 31-3-2007 and the value of the taxable service after abatement works out to Rs. 6,74,25,403/- on which the service tax liability works out to Rs. 82,52,869/-. The assessee however paid a sum of Rs. 26,20,702/- only. Hence the balance of amount of Rs. 56,32,167/- was sought to be recovered by them. Accordingly a show cause notice was issued.
 
-       The assessing authority came to the conclusion that in terms of Section 67 of the Act the assessees are liable to pay service tax on the gross amount realised from the various Airlines on account of outdoor catering service provided by them. That Section 67 clearly prescribes that the value of tax­able service shall be the gross amount charged by the service provider. Further the exemption claimed by the assessee under Notification 12/2003, dated 20-6- 2003 is legally unsustainable. Accordingly, the assessing authority confirmed the demand along with interest and penalty. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the assessee is enti­tled to the benefit of Notification No. 12/2003. That there is inclusion of value of goods sold by the assessee and in view of the separate invoices raised for the food and beverages having been supplied and having been paid for separately, the supplied should be treated as sale of goods and hence no service tax can be levied to that extent. By relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of BSNL v. Union of India reported in 2006 (2) S.T.R. 161 (S.C.) the benefit of Notification 12/2003 was held applicable to the assessee. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed. The imposition of penalty was set aside and consequen­tial reliefs were granted. Hence, the present appeals by the revenue.
 
Appellant’s Contention:
 
 
-       The assessee contended that they are eligible for exemption under Notification No. 12/2003, dated 20-6-2003 in respect of the value of food and bev­erages served to the Airlines on payment of VAT. That in a transaction of sale of food, the element of service in connection with catering was only to the extent of handling and loading of food and beverages on the aircraft. Hence they had paid service tax to that extent.
 
 
 
Issue Involved:
 
The issue involved in this case was that-
 
Whether the assessees are liable to pay service tax for the services rendered by him as outdoor caterers?
 
Order of the High Court: -
 
v  The High Court held that The identical question with regard to the liability of the assessee to­wards service tax so far as service rendered by them with regard to the outdoor catering is concerned, came up for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal Nos. 671 to 726/2011 which were disposed off by the order dated 18-4-2011. By a detailed consideration and relying on various Su­preme Court judgments, the Division Bench of this Court came to the conclusion that the outdoor catering contract is a contract for service by virtue of sub-clause (f) Clause 29A of Article 366 of the Constitution of India which has to be treated as composite contract and the State Legislature is competent to levy the sales tax on the sale aspect only namely, the value of the food articles.
 
v  Further it was held by them that outdoor catering consists of goods namely, the articles of food etc., which would constitute sale. Hence, the value of the food articles are liable for sales tax which the State Government is liable to impose. The other part of outdoor catering is the service rendered by the assessee in bringing the food articles to a place designated by the client. The service so rendered by the assessee, which also includes the cost of transporting the food articles constitutes service. Therefore, to this extent alone, the assessee is liable for service tax and for the entire cost received from the Airlines. Hence, there has to be a bifurcation with regard to the sale of goods and the service provided. However, it does not empower the State Government to levy tax on the entire amount mentioned in the bill. The entire sale price includes the transportation charges also and out of that sale price what is the service aspect and what is thesale aspect requires to be decided by the authorities. It is only thereafter that sales tax could be imposed on the cost of the food articles arrived at and the re­maining extent including transportation is to be treated as liable for service tax. Therefore, the court declared that a contract for outdoor catering is a composite contract which falls under sub-clause (f) of clause 29A of Article 366 of the Con­stitution of India and service tax payable on service aspect and sales tax is pay­able on deemed sales aspect and it is not an individual contract.
 
v  Further they held that the facts involved in the present case are identical to the facts that arose in the Writ Appeal Nos. 671 to 726/2001. Under these circumstances, these appeals are disposed off in terms of the judgment dated 18-4-2011 passed in Writ Appeal Nos. 671 to 726/2011. Consequently, the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.



 
Decision:
The appeals were disposed off in favour of assessee
Conclusion:
 
Composite contracts have been the issue of litigation from its inception and department wants to levy tax on sale of material also, however in the correct judgement has been given. But in the new service tax regime – there will not be litigation as the Outdoor catering are subject to abatement as per Rule – 2C of Service tax valuation rules.
 
 
                                                                                     ***********
 
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