2018 (2) TMI 1184 - AT - Service Tax

Valuation - includibility - transaction charges - Stock Broking Service - Held that - It cannot be nobodys case that the transaction charges are charged by the appellants on the clients. It is evident that these charges are required to be paid by the clients only to the stock exchange for the transactions in shares or stocks that they may have entered into on their own or through the stock brokers like the appellant herein. Merely because the appellants are collecting the said charges from their clients and remitting the same to the concerned stock exchange cannot be a reason for considering such amounts as received by them for services rendered by them. In the case of First Securities Pvt. Ltd. 2007 (6) TMI 33 - CESTAT, BANGALORE the Tribunal has held that handling charges collected from investors and the amounts collected towards transaction charges cannot be equated to brokerage or commission for purchase of securities. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Applicability of service tax on transaction charges collected by stockbrokers.
2. Interpretation of Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994 regarding valuation of taxable services.
3. Dispute over whether transaction charges collected by stockbrokers constitute consideration for services rendered.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a dispute regarding the applicability of service tax on transaction charges collected by stockbrokers in addition to brokerage charges. The Service Tax department issued a show cause notice proposing a demand for service tax, interest, and penalties. The original authority confirmed the proposals, including penalties under Section 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. On appeal, the penalty under Section 76 was set aside, but the rest of the order was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), leading to the current appeal.

2. The main argument presented by the appellant's counsel was based on the interpretation of Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994, prior to an amendment in 2006. The counsel contended that the transaction charges were not directly charged by the stockbrokers but were collected from clients and paid to the stock exchange on their behalf. The counsel relied on previous Tribunal decisions, such as First Securities Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CST, Bangalore and LSE Securities Ltd. Vs. CCE, Ludhiana, to support the argument that such transaction charges should not be considered as part of the taxable value for service tax purposes.

3. The Tribunal analyzed the arguments presented by both sides and found merit in the appellant's contentions. It was noted that the transaction charges were meant to be paid by clients to the stock exchange for their transactions, and stockbrokers were merely collecting and remitting these charges. The Tribunal referred to previous decisions where it was established that transaction charges and handling charges are not equivalent to brokerage or commission for the purchase of securities. Therefore, the Tribunal held in favor of the appellants, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal with consequential reliefs as per law. Additionally, a miscellaneous application for amending the cause title and the department's address was allowed to reflect the updated jurisdiction of the department.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal issues, arguments presented by both parties, relevant legal provisions, and the Tribunal's reasoning leading to the final decision in favor of the appellants.