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 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