Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2024 (9) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2024 (9) TMI 407 - AT - Service Tax


Issues:
Appeal against demand of service tax on cheque dishonour charges and late delivery charges.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Background:
The appeal arose from an Order-in-Appeal confirming a demand of service tax against the appellant for collecting penalty amounts from customers for cheque dishonour during the audit period. The appellant argued that the collected amounts were not consideration for any service provided, thus not liable to service tax.

2. Appellant's Arguments:
The appellant contended that the amounts collected were penal charges to deter contract violations, not consideration for any service. They cited various decisions supporting non-taxability of such charges, emphasizing no quid pro quo or activity for consideration.

3. Department's Arguments:
The department argued that the collected amounts fell under Section 66E(e) of the Finance Act, 1994, as the appellant agreed to tolerate the situation created by clients' cheque dishonour or late delivery charges. They asserted that the appellant's actions constituted a service under the Act.

4. Tribunal's Decision:
The Tribunal referred to precedent cases and analyzed Section 66E(e) in light of the agreements between the parties. It concluded that penal clauses were safeguards for commercial interests, not services for consideration. Citing consistent rulings, the Tribunal held that penalty/late delivery charges were not subject to service tax under Section 66E.

5. Outcome:
The impugned order confirming the demand of service tax was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant. The decision was pronounced in open court on 05.09.2024.

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

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates