2018 (6) TMI 708 - AT - Service Tax

Stock Broking Service - demand of service tax on transaction charges levied by stock exchanges on each and every transaction carried out by the appellant - reimbursable expenses or not? - Held that - This Bench, following the earlier decision of the Tribunal in the case of First Securities Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CST, Bangalore 2007 (6) TMI 33 - CESTAT, BANGALORE has held that handling charges and transaction charges as not part of the taxable value as additional brokerage for service tax purpose - demand set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Demand of service tax on transaction charges reimbursed by customers, applicability of Rule 5 of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006, limitation period for demands, interpretation of transaction charges as service provided by the appellant.

Analysis:

The case involved a dispute regarding the demand of service tax on "transaction charges" levied by stock exchanges on each transaction carried out by the appellant, claimed as reimbursable from customers. The period in question was from April 2006 to November 2008, with a confirmed demand of service tax amounting to ?1,16,61,787/- along with penalties imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant argued that transaction charges were not part of the gross amount charged for services provided, citing SEBI guidelines and challenging the validity of Rule 5 of the Service Tax Rules, 2006, based on a Delhi High Court ruling. The appellant also contended that demands up to March 2008 were time-barred, referring to a previous tribunal decision emphasizing that only charges directly related to services provided could be subject to service tax.

During the hearing, the appellant's counsel highlighted that transaction charges were mandated by the Securities Control Regulation Act and SEBI Guidelines, meant for transactions of securities by various parties through stockbrokers. The counsel argued that the charges were not for services rendered by the appellant and relied on precedents to support the position. On the contrary, the respondent supported the impugned order.

The tribunal, after considering the arguments and reviewing relevant precedents, found that the transaction charges were not for services provided by the appellant but were meant to be paid by clients to the stock exchange for their transactions. Citing earlier tribunal decisions, the bench held that the charges collected by the appellant from clients and remitted to the stock exchange did not constitute consideration for services rendered by the appellant. Therefore, the tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal and any consequential benefits as per law.

In conclusion, the tribunal's decision was based on the interpretation that transaction charges were not part of the services provided by the appellant, aligning with previous tribunal rulings and rejecting the application of Rule 5 of the Service Tax Rules, 2006. The judgment emphasized the distinction between charges collected for transactions and charges for services, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant and providing relief from the demanded service tax and penalties.