2017 (7) TMI 133 - AT - Service Tax

Business Support Services - charges towards registration fees of the RTO and also some incidental services such as providing Number Plate of the car and miscellaneous activity related to RTO registration - Held that - the identical issue has been decided by the Tribunal in the case of Wonder Cars Pvt. Ltd. 2016 (1) TMI 738 - CESTAT MUMBAI , where the RTO registration charges i.e. Smart card fees, vehicle registration fees and other extra charges was held not to be under Business Support Service, accordingly the demand was dropped - In the present case, the customer of car is not a business entity, so called business service to the customer of cars is not in relation to business of commerce of the customer of cars. Therefore service in question is not covered under Business Support Service - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Recovery of charges towards registration and handling charges under Business Support Service for Service Tax liability.

Analysis:
The case involved the appellant engaged in the sale of cars, recovering amounts from customers for registration charges, handling charges, and incidental services related to RTO registration. The department claimed these charges fell under Business Support Service and were subject to Service Tax. The appellant contested only the demand of Service Tax and relied on a Tribunal decision in a similar case. The Examining Officer for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the impugned order.

Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal noted that the appellant provided services like RTO registration and handling charges to customers. Referring to a previous Tribunal decision, it was highlighted that the definition of Business Support Services did not cover the services rendered by the appellant. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant's services did not fall under the category of Business Support Service as defined by the Finance Act. The Tribunal found that the services provided were not directly related to the main business of selling cars and were not covered under the definition of Business Support Services.

Based on the analysis and the precedent set by the previous Tribunal decision, the impugned order was deemed unsustainable. The Tribunal set aside the order and allowed the appeal, ruling that the services provided by the appellant were not covered under Business Support Service. The judgment was pronounced on 29.06.2017, concluding the case in favor of the appellant.