2018 (6) TMI 1159 - AT - Service Tax

Valuation - Mailing List Compilation and Mailing Services - inclusion of franking cost in assessable value - Held that - The costs related to franking are paid directly to the Post Master General by the appellant s clients or are otherwise paid by the appellant and subsequently, reimbursed by the said clients. Therefore, it cannot be alleged that the said charges are accruing to the appellants - the franking cost cannot be made part of the value of taxable service. Business Auxiliary Services - rebate received from the postal department - Held that - It cannot be treated as a commission or an amount received for promoting the postal services. Such incentives are given by the postal authority to encourage use of franking machines, especially where the volumes are above a certain threshold level - these are required to be taxed under Business Auxiliary Services. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues involved:
Tax liability on mailing services, inclusion of franking charges in taxable value, treatment of rebate from postal department, penalties under various provisions.

Analysis:
Tax liability on mailing services:
The appellants provided mailing services using franking machines obtained on license from the postal department. They collected service charges from clients and discharged tax liability from 16.06.2005 when the service became taxable under the Finance Act, 1994. A Show Cause Notice proposing a demand was issued, and the Commissioner confirmed the tax liability post the said date, imposing penalties under Sections 77 and 78 of the Act. The appellants challenged this in appeal.

Inclusion of franking charges in taxable value:
The issue revolved around whether franking charges should be included in the taxable value. The appellants argued that franking charges were not accruing to them as clients paid these directly to the Post Master General or reimbursed the appellants. The Tribunal held that these charges cannot be part of the taxable service value, citing a Supreme Court ruling.

Treatment of rebate from postal department:
Regarding the rebate received from the postal department, the Tribunal ruled that it should not be considered as a commission or amount for promoting postal services. The rebate was viewed as an incentive to encourage the use of franking machines, not part of taxable Business Auxiliary Services.

Penalties under various provisions:
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, citing a previous case where similar issues were addressed. The Tribunal emphasized that the nature of the transaction between the appellants, clients, and the postal department was crucial. The ruling highlighted that the appellants were users of the postal service, not clients, and the inclusion of franking costs in service charges would contradict the Post Office Act.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and providing consequential benefits as per law. The ruling emphasized that the franking costs and rebate should not be included in the taxable value of the mailing services, based on statutory provisions and judicial precedents.