2006 (10) TMI 61 - AT - Service Tax

Business Auxiliary Services Revenue contended that the appellant providing the service as the registrar to an issue and share transfer agent After considering the detail Authority rejected the revenue contention

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of services provided by the respondent as "business auxiliary service."
2. Applicability of new service tax provisions to the services rendered by the respondent.
3. Nature of services provided to election authorities and their classification as business activities.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of Services Provided by the Respondent as "Business Auxiliary Service":

The respondent company provides services as a registrar to an issue (RTA) and share transfer agent (STA), and also engages in the preparation of voter lists for the Chief Electoral Officer, Bhopal. The adjudicating authority initially classified these services under "business auxiliary service" as defined in Section 65(19) of the Act, which includes services related to the promotion or marketing of goods, customer care, and incidental or auxiliary support services. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside this classification, determining that the services did not fall under the said category. The Tribunal examined the nature of activities as per Regulation 14(2) and 14(3) of the SEBI regulations and concluded that the services rendered by the respondent are well-structured and codified, and cannot be categorized as "customer care service" as held in the Order-in-Original.

2. Applicability of New Service Tax Provisions to the Services Rendered by the Respondent:

The learned Counsel for the respondent argued that the services in question came under the tax net only from 1-5-2006, as per the new definitions under Section 65(89c) and 65(95a). These provisions define "registrar to an issue" and "share transfer agent" respectively. The Counsel highlighted that the new levy was introduced with the Finance Act, 2006, and was not applicable at the time when the Commissioner (Appeals) passed the order. The Tribunal agreed with this argument, noting that the services provided by the respondent were not taxable under the "business auxiliary service" category during the relevant period.

3. Nature of Services Provided to Election Authorities and Their Classification as Business Activities:

The respondent also provided services to election authorities, specifically in the preparation of electoral lists. The adjudicating authority did not make a finding on this aspect. The respondent's Counsel argued that these services cannot be categorized as "business" since election authorities operate under constitutional obligations and are not engaged in commercial activities. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's observation in Sole Trustee, Loka Shikshana Trust v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore, which stated that profit motive is a normal incident of business activity. The Tribunal concluded that the activities of electoral machinery cannot be termed as "business activity," similar to how maintaining armed forces is considered a sovereign activity of the State, as per Bhaktawar Singh Balkishan v. Union of India & Others.

Conclusion:

After examining the case records and hearing both sides, the Tribunal found no sufficient grounds to interfere with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed, affirming that the services rendered by the respondent do not fall under the "business auxiliary service" category and that the new service tax provisions were not applicable during the relevant period. The Tribunal also upheld that services provided to election authorities are not commercial in nature and thus cannot be classified as business activities.