9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (3) TMI 309 - AT - Service TaxLiability of Service Tax - Advisory Services & Consulting Services in relation to Merger & Acquisitions for the period prior 16.07.2001 - Whether these services comes under Management Consultant Services and Banking & other Financial Services - Held that the services as rendered by the appellant, would not fall under Management consultancy Services, as there services rendered by the appellant may not get covered even as per CBEC Circular dated 26.07.2001. Also by relying on the decisions taken in the case of DSP Merrill Lynch Limited 2016 (2) TMI 221 - CESTAT MUMBAI and Indian National Shipowners Association 2009 (3) TMI 29 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT , the taxability of Merger & Acquisitions is covered under Banking and Financial Services, w.e.f. 16.07.2001. Therefore, the Service tax liability in the facts of this case is w.e.f. 16.07.2001 only and not prior to that date. - Decided in favour of assessee
Issues Involved:
1. Tax liability on advisory and consulting services in relation to mergers and acquisitions prior to 16.07.2001. 2. Classification of services under "Management Consultancy Services" versus "Banking and Other Financial Services". 3. Applicability of Board Circulars and judicial precedents. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Tax Liability on Advisory and Consulting Services in Relation to Mergers and Acquisitions Prior to 16.07.2001: The primary issue was whether the appellant was liable to pay service tax on advisory and consulting services related to mergers and acquisitions for the period prior to 16.07.2001. The Revenue had issued a show-cause notice demanding service tax for the period 2000-2001 under the category of management consultancy services. The appellant contested this demand, arguing that the service tax liability for advisory services was introduced as a separate category under "Banking and Other Financial Services" from 16.07.2001, and hence, no liability arose for the period before this date. 2. Classification of Services Under "Management Consultancy Services" Versus "Banking and Other Financial Services": The appellant argued that their services did not fall under "Management Consultancy Services" as defined, but rather under "Banking and Other Financial Services." The definitions were crucial in this determination: - "Management Consultant" includes services related to the management of any organization, involving advice, consultancy, or technical assistance. - "Banking & Other Financial Services" includes advisory services on mergers and acquisitions, introduced as a taxable category from 16.07.2001. The tribunal noted that the services rendered by the appellant did not fall under "Management Consultancy Services" as per the CBEC Circular dated 26.07.2001. The introduction of a new category for mergers and acquisitions under "Banking and Other Financial Services" indicated that these services were not previously covered under "Management Consultancy Services." 3. Applicability of Board Circulars and Judicial Precedents: The tribunal referred to the Board Circular No. 1/1/2001-ST (Section 37-B) dated 27.06.2001, which discussed the taxable services under management consultancy, including mergers and acquisitions. However, the tribunal found that the circular did not conclusively classify the appellant's services under management consultancy. The tribunal also relied on judicial precedents, notably: - The Bombay High Court's decision in Indian National Shipowners Association vs. UOI, which held that the introduction of a new entry presupposes that there was no earlier entry covering the said services. - The tribunal's decision in DSP Merrill Lynch Limited, which held that mergers and acquisitions services were not covered under management consultancy prior to 16.07.2001. The tribunal concluded that the services related to mergers and acquisitions were specifically brought under the service tax net from 16.07.2001 and were not taxable under the earlier "Management Consultancy Services" category. Conclusion: The tribunal set aside the impugned order, holding that the service tax liability for the appellant's advisory and consulting services in relation to mergers and acquisitions arose only from 16.07.2001 and not prior to that date. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief. The operative order was pronounced in open court.
|
