2018 (9) TMI 1273 - AT - Service Tax

Business Auxiliary Services - activity of computerization of Excise and Taxation Technical Service Agency the authority of Punjab Government - period from 2010-11 to 2011-12 - Held that - The issue has been examined by this Tribunal in their own case for the earlier period in TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LIMITED VERSUS C.S.T. -DELHI 2018 (6) TMI 1013 - CESTAT NEW DELHI where it was held that appellant is not liable to pay service tax on the amount received from Punjab Government for renovation of Technical Programme given by them for Excise and Taxation Technical Service Agency. The services provided by the appellants do not qualify as Business Auxiliary Services therefore the demands against the appellants are set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Appeal against demand of service tax under 'Business Auxiliary Services' for the period 2010-11 to 2011-12. Change of cause title of the appeals from CMC Ltd. to Tata Consultancy Services Ltd.

Analysis:
The appellant appealed against the confirmed demand of service tax under 'Business Auxiliary Services' for the period 2010-11 to 2011-12. The appellant had also filed a Miscellaneous Application for the change of cause title of the appeals from CMC Ltd. to Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. The appellant contended that they had merged with Tata Consultancy Services Ltd., which led to the change in the cause title. The Tribunal disposed of the Miscellaneous Application, acknowledging the merger and changing the cause title accordingly.

The demand of service tax was confirmed against the appellant for providing computerization services to the Excise and Taxation Technical Service Agency of the Punjab Government during the mentioned period. The appellant argued that a previous Tribunal order in their favor had held them not liable to pay service tax. The Tribunal examined the issue based on the definition of 'Business Auxiliary Services' under Section 65(19) and the specific activities involved in the case. It was noted that the outsourced activity of establishing a Wide Area Network (WAN) was in the nature of Information Technology Service, which is excluded from the definition of Business Auxiliary Services. Additionally, it was argued that providing services to a government department engaged in public services did not fall under the levy of service tax under Business Auxiliary Services.

Referring to the precedent decision in the appellant's own case, the Tribunal held that the services provided did not qualify as 'Business Auxiliary Services.' Therefore, the demands against the appellants were set aside, and the impugned orders were also set aside. Consequently, the appeals were allowed with any consequential relief to the appellants.