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 (11) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2024 (11) TMI 346 - AT - Service Tax


Issues Involved:

1. Whether the unbilled revenue should be included in the gross value for the purpose of charging service tax under Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994.
2. Whether the extended period of limitation was rightly invoked in the show cause notice.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Inclusion of Unbilled Revenue in Gross Value for Service Tax:

The central issue in this case was whether unbilled revenue should be included in the gross value for the purpose of charging service tax. The appellant argued that as per Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994, only the amount charged for the provision of service is taxable. Since the unbilled revenue was neither billed nor charged to the service recipient, it should not be included in the gross value for service tax purposes. The appellant cited several judgments, including the landmark judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in *Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt. Ltd.*, which clarified that Rule 5 of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006, cannot override Section 67. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, noting that the Revenue's demand was based on an amount that was not charged to the service recipient and thus not part of the gross value as per Section 67. The Tribunal referenced the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the appellant's own case, which had already settled this issue, stating that unbilled amounts are not liable to service tax. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the demand for service tax on the unbilled revenue was unsustainable.

2. Invocation of Extended Period of Limitation:

The appellant contended that the show cause notice wrongly invoked the extended period of limitation, arguing there was no suppression of facts on their part. However, the Tribunal did not provide a definitive ruling on this issue, as it was left open. The focus of the Tribunal's decision was primarily on the substantive issue of whether unbilled revenue could be taxed, and since the demand itself was found unsustainable, the question of limitation became secondary.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal on the grounds that the unbilled revenue could not be included in the gross value for service tax purposes. The Tribunal relied on the precedent set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the jurisdictional High Court, affirming that Rule 5 of the Service Tax Rules cannot extend the scope of Section 67 of the Finance Act. The issue of limitation was not conclusively addressed, as the primary demand itself was found to be unsustainable. The decision underscores the principle that the value of taxable services must be determined strictly as per the statutory provisions, without unwarranted expansion by subordinate legislation.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates