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 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