2025 (4) TMI 1068 - AT - Service Tax

Levy of service tax - Business Support Services - appraising chares collected - HELD THAT - The issue involved in this appeal involving identical facts has already been decided in the case of M/S. THE RASIPURAM AGRICULTURAL PRODUCERS CO OP. MARKETING SOCIETY LTD. (S. NO. 318) VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF GST AND CENTRAL EXCISE SALEM 2024 (2) TMI 200 - CESTAT CHENNAI wherein it has been held the appellant is borrowing the money from the bank on its account and in turn lending it to their farmer members on interest. The services rendered by the appellant are relatable only to its members and not to the bank and the charges collected for appraising jewels before sanctioning of loans are in the nature of cost incurred by the appellant for sanctioning of loans. As such there is no BSS rendered in the instant case. As such we hold that the demands raised under the impugned orders demanding service tax under Auctioneer Service and BAS are not maintainable. The impugned Order-in-Appeal cannot be sustained and ordered to be set aside - Appeal allowed.

Summary

The core legal question considered by the Tribunal is whether the appellant, a cooperative society providing jewel loans to its members, is liable to pay service tax under the category of "Business Support Services" (BSS) on the appraising charges collected from members for pledging their jewels.

In addressing this issue, the Tribunal examined the relevant provisions of the Finance Act, 1994, particularly Section 65(105)(zzzq) and Section 65(104c), which define and govern the levy of service tax on Business Support Services effective from 01.05.2006. The Department contended that the appellant's collection of appraisal charges constitutes a taxable service since it supports the business or trade of its members by facilitating jewel loans.

The appellant challenged this demand on multiple grounds: first, asserting entitlement to Small Scale Industry (SSI) exemption; second, denying any tax liability or obligation to register and file returns; and third, emphasizing its status as a cooperative society formed for the benefit of its members under the Co-operative Societies Act, thereby negating any allegation of suppression.

Upon hearing, the Tribunal noted that the appellant had not appeared in person but had requested the matter be decided on the grounds of appeal filed. The Department's representative reiterated the findings of the lower authorities confirming the service tax demand.

The Tribunal then undertook a detailed analysis by referring to precedents involving identical facts. Notably, it relied on a recent decision involving a similarly constituted agricultural producers cooperative society which was lending jewel loans to members and collecting appraisal charges. In that case, the Tribunal held that the appellant was borrowing funds from a cooperative bank and lending to its members on interest, and that the appraisal charges were merely costs incurred for sanctioning loans. Importantly, the Tribunal observed that the service rendered was exclusively to its members and not to the financing bank, and thus did not constitute a Business Support Service as defined under the Finance Act.

The Tribunal reasoned that since the appellant's activity involved lending its own borrowed funds to members and charging appraisal fees as part of the loan sanctioning process, these charges did not amount to a taxable service under the BSS category. The service was not rendered to any third party or in the course of supporting the business or trade of the members in a manner attracting service tax. Instead, it was an internal activity incidental to the cooperative's function of providing financial assistance to its members.

The Tribunal further noted that the issue was no longer res integra, having been settled by prior authoritative decisions on identical facts, which militated against imposing service tax liability in such cases.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned Order-in-Appeal and the Order-in-Original confirming the service tax demand and penalties. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief as per law.

In sum, the Tribunal established the principle that cooperative societies providing jewel loans to their members, charging appraisal fees as part of the loan process, do not render a taxable Business Support Service under the Finance Act. The charges collected are considered incidental to the lending activity and do not attract service tax liability.

Key holdings include the following verbatim excerpt from the precedent relied upon:

"The services rendered by the appellant are relatable only to its members and not to the bank and the charges collected for appraising jewels before sanctioning of loans are in the nature of cost incurred by the appellant for sanctioning of loans. As such, there is no BSS rendered in the instant case."

This core principle guided the Tribunal's final determination that the appellant was not liable to pay service tax on the appraisal charges collected, leading to the quashing of the tax demand and penalties.