9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1002X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... actual arrangements nor factually established - decided against Revenue. Business auxiliary services - the allegation is that the appellant-assessee is providing service to ICICI bank which is incidental or auxiliary to the bill collection - Held that: - The cheques and other bills collected by the appellant-assessee are on their own account which are further passed on in terms of agreement with the ICICI bank. The conditions of transaction and schedule of payment will not influence the nature of activity as agreed upon between the two contracting parties - We find no element of Business Auxiliary Service in such arrangement - decided against Revenue. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - ST/166/2010, ST/560/2011 - Final Order No.42948-42949/2017 - Dated:- 16-11-2017 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S. Member (Judicial) And Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Shri P.C Anand, Consultant For the Appellant-Assessee Shri N.Rajagopalan, Special Counsel Shri K.Veerabhadra Reddy, JC (AR) For the Revenue ORDER Per B. Ravichandran These two appeals are on common dispute regarding service tax liability of the appellant-assessee under the category of Busi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idental activities which are mandated as per the agreement entitles the appellant-assessee certain consideration which is a percentage of payment. He submitted that it is clearly an activity which is incidental or auxiliary to the support service relating to billing, collection, recovery of cheque, remittance of amount and will be correctly liable to tax under the tax entries above mentioned. He contested the finding of the impugned order stating that there is a wrong appreciation of facts and the tax liability has been incorrect set aside. He further reiterated, more specifically, para-9 of the grounds of appeal which states that Trust / SPV have sold their shares through PTC to various stake holders and are being obligated to repay to the PTC holders as per the agreed schedule. Submitting that by the services of the appellant-assessee in collecting, depositing the cheques from the loan clients, they are enabling the Trust / SPV in such contractual obligation, Ld. A.R submitted that tax liability should be correctly upheld. 4. Ld. Consultant appearing for the appellant-assessee contested the appeal by the Revenue and submitted that they are transacting with the Trust / SPV on p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dental or auxiliary support service, the activity of the main person (service receiver) is to be identified. In the present case, the obligation of the Trust for PTC holders is identified as the main activity which is incidentally or auxiliarily supported by the appellant-assessee. We find no reason for such inference. It is neither supported by contractual arrangements nor factually established. As such, we find no merit in the appeal by the Revenue against the impugned order. Appeal ST/560/2011 6. The appeal by the assessee is almost on similar issue for a different period. However, the main difference in the present appeal is that instead of selling the asset of future receivables to a Trust, the same is given to ICICI bank. The bank and the appellant-assessee entered into another agreement which provided the appellant-assessee to collect various cheques from the identified obligors (loan clients) and to deposit in a prescribed schedule with the bank. For this, some fee is paid to the appellant-assessee. The Revenue entertained a view that the taxable services are clearly identified in terms of the agreement. However, the consideration is not manifestly emerging from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o avoid tax liability. The service charges and expenses are shown out of such profit and this is only an accounting method to avoid tax. 9. We have heard both sides and perused the appeal records. The dispute in the present appeal also is almost on similar footing as that of the above mentioned appeal by Revenue. The differences are mainly accounting and the status of service recipient. Instead of Trust, ICICI bank is involved in the transaction. Further, the justification of tax liability under BAS in the appeal by the Revenue is with reference to obligation of the Trust to PTC holders and in the present case, the allegation is that the appellant-assessee in providing service to ICICI bank which is incidental or auxiliary to the bill collection. We are not in agreement with the proposition to identify the appellant-assessee as collecting agent of ICICI for BAS. Such collection agents are generally dealing an amount or instrument which is due to an institution from a third party for which the agent acts as a middleman. The present facts of the case makes it clear that instrument or amount is intended and remitted to the appellant-assessee by way of cheque. The said amount has to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
