CITI Bank N.A. Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai)
Summary: The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai, considered the taxability of interchange fees received by a credit-card issuing bank from acquiring banks under the taxable category of Credit Card Services. The appeal arose from a common Order-in-Original No. CHN-SVTAX-001-COM-71 to 74/2016-2017 dated 24.1.2017, by which the adjudicating authority confirmed service tax liabilities and penalties against the appellant for the period October 2007 to March 2015.
The case arose during audit of the appellant’s accounts. The Department examined the credit-card transaction mechanism involving issuing banks, acquiring banks, merchant establishments and card networks such as MasterCard, Visa and Diners Club International. The Department treated the interchange fee received by the issuing bank as consideration for services connected with credit-card transactions. During October 2007 to June 2012, the appellant had received interchange fee of Rs.6,04,28,07,230/-, on which service tax was worked out at Rs.65,53,24,371/-. The appellant had, on its own accord, paid Rs.15,00,00,000/- towards service tax during the proceedings.
Four show-cause notices covering October 2007 to March 2015 alleged service tax liability on interchange fees under the taxable entry for Credit Card Services. The total amount involved in the notices was stated to be Rs.1,64,28,86,059/-, together with interest and penalties.
The appellant explained that a credit-card transaction involves distinct contractual relationships between the issuing bank and card holder, acquiring bank and merchant establishment, and the card network and the respective banks. The Merchant Discount Fee collected by the acquiring bank includes an interchange component which is shared with the issuing bank. According to the appellant, the entire Merchant Discount Fee, including the interchange component, had already suffered service tax in the hands of the acquiring bank. Consequently, taxing the same interchange amount again in the hands of the issuing bank would result in double taxation.
The appellant further contended that it did not render a service to the acquiring bank in return for the interchange fee, that there was no service-provider/service-recipient relationship between them for the disputed amount, and that the interchange fee was in the nature of interest associated with lending to card holders. It also relied upon the statutory definition of Credit Card Services under Section 65(33a) of the Finance Act, 1994, particularly the provision relating to settlement of amounts transacted through a card. TaxGuru’s contemporaneous explanation of the provision records that Credit Card Services were separately introduced with effect from 01.05.2006 and sets out the relevant statutory definition.
The Department relied heavily upon the Larger Bench decision in Standard Chartered Bank Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai-I – 2015 (40) STR 104 (Tri. LB), contending that interchange fee represented consideration for services rendered by the issuing bank. The Department also argued that Credit Card Services became a separate taxable category with effect from 01.05.2006.
The Tribunal examined the structure of the transaction and identified five participants: the issuing bank, credit-card holder, acquiring bank, merchant establishment and card network. It noted that the acquiring bank charged Merchant Discount Fee to the merchant establishment and that the disputed interchange fee was the amount shared with the issuing bank. In the transaction illustrated in the impugned order, the disputed interchange fee was Rs.2/- out of a Rs.100/- transaction.
The Tribunal considered the appellant’s specific objections that no service was rendered, there was no service-provider/service-recipient relationship, there was no consideration payable by a service recipient to the issuing bank, interchange fees were in the nature of interest on loan, and service tax on the same amount would result in double taxation.
The Tribunal distinguished the Larger Bench decision in Standard Chartered Bank. It found that the issue there concerned whether interchange fee received by an issuing bank from an acquiring bank fell within the taxable entry of Banking and Other Financial Services. In the present case, the demand was raised under Credit Card Services, whose definition was materially different. The Tribunal also noted that the premise in Standard Chartered Bank was that the issuing bank provided a service to the acquiring bank, whereas in the present case the appellant specifically disputed that proposition. The Larger Bench therefore had not examined whether the issuing bank’s activity constituted a service covered by the Credit Card Services entry in the manner contended by the appellant.
The Tribunal placed particular reliance on its recent decision in ABN Amro Bank NV Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida, Final Order No.71601/2018 dated 23.7.2018. In that case, where the acquiring bank had discharged service tax on the amount in question, the Tribunal held that no further service tax was payable by the issuing bank. It also found that the issuing bank was not engaged in settlement of the amount and therefore the amount received by it did not qualify as Credit Card Services under Section 65(33A).
The Tribunal found the ABN Amro decision directly applicable to the dispute before it and saw no reason to differ from its ratio. It consequently held that the impugned order was not sustainable and set it aside on that legal ground. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief, if any. The Revenue’s miscellaneous application for change of cause title was also allowed.
Cases Discussed
- Standard Chartered Bank Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai-I – 2015 (40) STR 104 (Tri. LB).
- Mittal Engineering Works (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Meerut – 1996 (88) E.L.T. 622 (S.C.).
- H.H. Maharajadhiraja Madhav Rao Vs. Union Of India – 1971 SCC (1) 85.
- ABN Amro Bank NV Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida – Final Order No.71601/2018 dated 23.7.2018.
- Commissioner of C. Ex., Lucknow Vs. Chotey Lal Radhey Shyam – 2018 (8) G.S.T.L. 225 (All.).
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF CESTAT, CHENNAI
1.1 The facts of the case narrated in paragraphs 2 to 2.2 of the impugned order is as under:-
“During the course of audit of accounts of the assessee by Service Tax Internal Audit Group of Service Tax Commissionerate, Chennai, it was noticed that the assessee was issuing credit cards to its customers; that credit card transactions typically involve two banks – an issuing bank and an acquiring bank; that issuing bank issues credit cards to its customers; that acquiring banks contract merchant establishments to accept credit card payment for the goods or services sold to the customers and to facilitate such transactions, the acquiring banks provide the required infrastructure like Card Wiping Terminal (Point of Sale Machines), payment gateway etc.; that assessee‟s credit card customers are using Point of Sale (POS) machines installed by acquiring banks in various merchant establishments / service establishments; that the acquiring banks make payments to the merchant establishments / service establishments and charge them a pre-contracted rate known as Merchant Discount Rate (MDR) to facilitate the credit card transaction; that acquiring bank submit the transactions settled by merchant establishments to the assessee (Issuing Bank) through Card Association and in turn the assessee makes payments to the acquiring bank through Card Association; that Card Association (Master Card, Visa and Diners Club International) acts as a bridge between the assessee (Issuing Bank) and acquiring banks; that Card Association provides the required network and platform to the issuing banks and acquiring banks for facilitating the cards transactions; that normally acquiring bank submits the transactions (settled by merchants) to the Card Association in a standard file format for onward submission to the assessee (issuing bank); that the standard file format contains details like card number, acquirer reference number, transaction amount, interchange fee, date of transaction, nature of merchant business etc.; that based on the transaction details received from the Card Association, the assessee (issuing bank) bills the customer for gross amount and pays the gross amount less interchange fee (which is credited by the acquiring banks) by remitting the same through the Card Association; that assessee (issuing bank) normally receives the gross amount from their customers based on the monthly billing statement with a due-date by which the payment needs to be made by the customer. In this regard, it appeared that the interchange fee is nothing but a share of the MDR earned by the assessee and forms part of their service income in relation to credit card or other payment card services and that service tax under credit card, debit card, charge card or other payment card services. During the period from October 2007 to June 2012, the assessee had received interchange fee of Rs.6,04,28,07,230/- from the acquiring banks and service tax payable on the said interchange fee worked out toRs.65,53,24,371/-. On being pointed out by audit, the assessee vide letter dated 12.4.2013 stated that the gross amount of consideration received for taxable service under the taxing entry of “Credit Card Services”, has already been subjected to service tax, in the hands of acquiring banks, that the interchange fee received by the issuing bank is just a share of the MDR received from acquiring bank; that issuing bank is not rendering any service to acquiring bank and hence no service tax is applicable on the proportionate share of MDR received by issuing bank in the form of interchange; that taxing the interchange as share of MDR, in hands of issuing banks would amount to double taxation as the gross MDR has already been subjected to service tax; that since service tax was paid on the entire MDR, their liability, if any, should be adjusted accordingly. They also enclosed (1) a Note on Credit card transactions and applicability of service tax and (2) an excel sheet showing the workings of the interchange earning and details of MDR. However, on their own accord, the assessee paid an amount of Rs.15,00,00,000/- towards service tax vide Challan No. 11046 dated 28.3.2013”.
1.2 Four show cause notices were issued to the appellants covering the period from October 2007 to March 2015 alleging that service tax liability is required to be discharged on these fees under taxing entry for “Credit Card Services” amounting to Rs.1,64,28,86,059/- with interest thereon as also proposing imposition of penalties under various provisions of law. All these four notices / statement of demand were adjudicated by a common Order-in-Original No. 71 to 74/2016 – 2017 dated 24.1.2017, wherein the proposed tax liabilities were confirmed with interest thereon, and penalties also imposed under various provisions of law. Hence appellants are before this forum.
2.1 When the matter came up for hearing, on behalf of the appellants learned Senior Advocate Shri N. Venkataraman made various oral and written submissions, which can be broadly summarized as under:-
(i) In any credit card transaction, there arises the following distinct contractual (service) relationships, between:
a) the Issuing Bank and the Card Holder,
b) the Acquiring Bank and the Merchant Establishment,
c) the Card Network and the Issuing Bank,
d) the Card Network and the Acquiring Bank.
(ii) In each of these contractual relationships, services are provided by the former to the latter and service tax is charged on the consideration for the respective services, none of which is contested by the Department:
a) service provided by the Issuing Bank to the Card Holder is levied to service tax
b) service provided by the Acquiring Bank to the Merchant Establishment is service tax paid
c) services provided by the Card Network to the Acquiring Bank is tax paid, and
d) services provided by the Card Network to the Issuing Bank is charged to tax.
(iii) The payment by Merchant Establishments to the Acquiring Bank known as Merchant Discount Fee includes a portion (known as Interchange Fees) that is shared by the Acquiring Bank with the Issuing Bank and the case of the Respondent-Department is that Issuing Bank receives Interchange Fees for services rendered to CN and which is not taxed.
(iv) In a typical transaction, services are provided by one person to the next in the supply chain and consideration is received for such services in turn. However, in the present case, for the sake of commercial efficacy and technological reasons, while services are provided by the Acquiring Bank and Issuing Bank to their respective customers (Merchant Establishments and Card Holders respectively), the entire fees are collected and culminate at a single source point, i.e., in the hands of the Acquiring Bank. There are effectively two parties jointly acting for settlement of a single transaction.
(v) Said differently, the settlement (payment for) the transaction takes place in a reverse manner, inasmuch as the Acquiring Bank charges the entire fees for services provided by itself and by the Issuing Bank, and thereafter, the fees so received is shared with the Issuing Bank. This settlement system is followed since there is no privity of contract between the Acquiring Bank and Issuing Bank, or the Merchant Establishments and Issuing Bank inter se. Therefore, by default, the Interchange Fee (as part of the MDF) can only be collected at the Acquiring Bank‟s end through his client, and in no other way, in the process of settlement which is based on a technological platform.
(vi) If the collection of fees (of the Acquiring Bank and the Issuing Bank) was broken into two parts and so changed, the Issuing Bank‟s fee charged to the Card Holder (its customer) may have borne the form and shape of interest and not suffered service tax. Numerically, as a result of the settlement mechanism presently followed, the entire transaction has suffered service tax. The Interchange Fees that is earned by the Issuing Bank is taxed as part of and in the hands of the Acquiring Bank i.e. at first point. Since service tax is already levied on the Interchange Fees, the same cannot once again be subjected to service tax in the hands of the Issuing Bank.
(vii) The adjudicating authority has relied upon the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in Standard Chartered Bank Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai – I – 2015 (40) STR 104 (Tri. LB). However, the judgment is distinguishable from the present case for various reasons. Without prejudice, the present factual matrix, in fact addresses the said judgement, inasmuch as the Interchange Fees earned by the Issuing Bank does suffer service tax, although in the hands of the Acquiring Bank.
(viii) The judgment in the case of Standard Chartered (supra) is not applicable in the present case for the following reasons:
a. The period in question in that case was prior to 01.05.2006, during which the law applicable differed. The issue in question in the Standard Chartered case was whether Interchange Fee received by the Issuing Bank from the Acquiring Bank fell within the scope of the taxing entry of Banking and other Financial Services („BFS‟) and should be taxed. In the present case, the demand is raised under the taxing entry of CCS, the definition of which is entirely different from the definition of BFS.
b. The premise in the Standard Chartered case was that there was a service by the Issuing Bank to the Acquiring Bank, therefore, whether or not Interchange Fee was consideration for service was not in question before the Hon‟ble Tribunal. This is contrarian to the submission of the Appellant in the present case and finding in the OIO.
c. It was not the submission of the assessees (in that case) that Interchange Fee was not consideration for services, therefore, the Hon‟ble Tribunal did not have the occasion to decide whether or not the activity of the Issuing Bank was a service and covered by the taxing entry for CCS. If a particular issue has been decided in a judicial precedent wherein a specific argument was not advanced / raised and hence, the same was not discussed, then a subsequent matter where such argument is raised cannot be considered to be on the same footing as the matter and findings in the said judicial precedent:
-
-
- Mittal Engineering Works (P) Ltd vs. CCE, Meerut [1996 (88) E.L.T. 622 (S.C.)]
- H.H. Maharajadhiraja Madhav Rao vs. Union Of India [1971 SCC (1) 85]
-
(ix) On the other hand, on identical factual matrix, the Tribunal in a recent decision vide Final Order No. 71601/2018 dated 23.7.2018, in the case of ABN Amro Bank NV Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida has held that since the acquiring bank has paid service tax on whole of the amount (MDF and Interchange Fees), and out of which only some amount has been shared with the issuing bank, no service tax is payable by the issuing bank. The said judgment is directly applicable and binding in the present case since (a) the demand in ABN Amro‟s case was for the period 2006 – 2008, which period is covered in the present case as well, (b) the demand was raised under the taxing entry of Credit Card Services as in the case of this appellant and (c) in practice, the banking industry has followed a uniform approach by taxing the entire amount (of MDF and Interchange Fee) in the acquiring bank‟s hands and thereafter sharing the Interchange Fee component with the issuing bank, which fact has been clearly brought forth and informed in the filing with the CBEC on various dates and way back in 2006.
(x) The United States Tax Court in the case of Capital One Financial Corporation & Subsidiaries Vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue as reported in 133 T.C. No. 6, involving similar service has held that “interchange is not a fee for any service other than the lending money to cardholders, the income from which is generally treated as interest; interchange compensates banks for the costs of lending”. The US Tax Court has concluded “that interchange is not a fee for any service other than lending money to cardholders, income from which is generally treated as interest. The petitioners have shown that interchange fees are a form of interest compensating Capital One for the costs of lending money”.
(xi) The impugned order traverses beyond the scope of the show cause notice. The demand in the show cause notices is on the premise that interchange fee is consideration for service provided by the issuing bank to the acquiring bank. The impugned order on the other hand confirms the demand of service tax on the basis that interchange fee is consideration for service provided by the issuing bank to the card network.
(xii) The proceedings are also hit by limitation. The issue is common to the entire banking industry and is not unique to the appellant alone. The ld. counsel drew attention to representation from the Indian Banks Association (IBA) on 17.7.20016 to the Commissioner of Service Tax, CBEC inter alia on the issue in appeal. The IBA wrote further letters to Commissioner of Service Tax on 20.11.2006, 14.7.2007, 16.2.2008, 17.10.2012. In fact, even in the letter dated 20.11.2006, the IBA drew attention to a meeting with Commissioner of Service Tax on 22.6.2006 and requested for early clarification to the effect that no service tax has to be paid by the issuing bank on its interchange income. As CBEC was fully aware of the entire issue, and in fact, the clarifications were being awaited by IBA of which the appellant is a member, the allegation of suppression, fraud, mis-statement or intention to evade payment of tax could not be foisted on the appellant. Secondly, the entire period of limitation could not have been invoked in the impugned show cause notice. Hence on these grounds and on the ground of limitation also, the entire proceedings may be set aside.
3.1 On the other hand, ld. AR Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy supported the findings in the impugned order. The Credit Card Services was carved out of Banking and Other Financial Services and made separate taxable category with effect from 1.5.2006. He much relied upon the decision of Larger Bench in the case of Standard Chartered Bank Ltd. (supra). He referred to para 41 of the judgment and argued that the Larger Bench had also analyzed the issue of interchange fee received as settlement services and observed that such services have brought within taxablе net with effect from 1.5.2006. The interchange fee is consideration received for providing credit facility to the customer and therefore taxable at the hands of issuing bank who has issued the credit card to the customer.
4. Heard both sides and have carefully gone through the concerned records.
5.1 We find that the issue in dispute concerns taxability or otherwise of Interchange Fees which accrues to the appellant as a fallout of each credit card transactions by a holder of a credit card issued by the former.
5.2 From the submissions made by both sides, we have been able to comprehend the roles of various parties involved in such credit card transactions as under:-
In credit card transactions, following five parties are involved, namely:
a) Issuing Bank (IB) – The Issuing Bank issues credit cards and therefore, effectively lends monies to its Card Holders. The contractual relationship between an Issuing Bank and its Card Holders is spelt out in the cardholder agreement / terms & conditions. Service fees are charged to service tax.
b) Credit Card holders (CH) – The Card Holder is the customer to whom the Issuing Bank issues a credit card. The credit card evidences a potential line of credit established by the Issuing Bank using which the Card Holder may purchase goods or services at any of the Merchant Establishments.
c) Acquiring Bank (AB) – The Acquiring Bank is a bank which recruits, screens, and accepts Merchant Establishments into a Card Network‟s network. They provide a Point of Sale (hereinafter referred to as „POS‟) machines to Merchant Establishments which enable Merchant Establishments to validate and accept credit card payments. The Acquiring Bank processes credit card transactions for Merchant Establishments within the respective Card Network and also operates per the respective Network‟s Operating Regulations. Any service fees (typically Merchant Discount Fee / MDF) from Merchant Establishment is fully charged to service tax.
d) Merchant Establishment (ME) – The Merchant sells goods or services to Card Holders (buyers). The Merchant has no contractual relationship with the Card Holder‟s Issuing Bank. The Merchant is provided with POS machines by the Acquiring Bank to enable it to accept card payments, for a fee (Merchant Discount Fee / MDF) which is pre-agreed and deducted at the time of settlement of the transactions. For this, the Merchant operates a bank account with the Acquiring Bank for credit (payments) for sales made to Card Holders.
e) Card Network (CN) – For example, Visa or MasterCard who provide the infrastructure / gateway system for electronic (credit card) transactions to effectuate. They also process transactions between Acquiring Banks and Issuing Banks, allowing purchases to be made, authorized and settled. Card Networks function as an interface between the Acquiring Banks and Issuing Banks, operating like an exchange or clearing platform. Thus, they have the key role in settlement of a Credit Card transaction. The Card Network prescribes the Operating Rules and the ‘Interchange Fees‟ that IBs earn besides manage interchange flow between banks. The CN in most cases is located outside India. The charges levied by CN, whether to the Acquiring Bank or Issuing Bank suffer service tax under the reverse charge mechanism.
5.3 The transaction processes has been capsulated in following flow charts in the impugned order, which is as under:-
5.4 In the flow charts given above, for transaction of Rs.100/- shown, the interchange fee of Rs.2/- is the amount which is under dispute in these appeals. Revenue insists that it would fall within the ambit of the service tax liability under Credit Card Services.
5.5 Appellant, however, contests the demand on the following counts:-
♦ No service is rendered
♦ There is no service provider-service recipient relationship
♦ There is no consideration payable by the service recipient to the service provider
♦ Interchanging fees is in the nature of “interest on loan”
♦ Any attempt to levy service tax on interchange fee at the hands of issuing bank would amount to double taxation
♦ Transaction in money is not liable to service tax
♦ Transaction in its entirety is one of „trading‟
♦ Judgment in the case of Standard Chartered not applicable in the present case.
5.6 On the other hand, the adjudicating authority has found that interchange fee is paid for facilitating the purchase using the card and not for lending the money for the purchase; that interchange fee is a consideration that accrues to the issuing bank for verifying, facilitating and extending the purchase value in line with the contractual agreement, the issuing bank has with the card association and taking the risk for collection of amounts from the card holder.
5.7 In response to the appellant‟s contention that service tax is being paid on the entire MDR (Merchant Discount Rate), the adjudicating authority in para 8.11 of the impugned order has taken a stand that no proof has been furnished to that extent. Moreover, the interchange fee is the consideration given to issuing bank for validating the transaction and the MDR is the consideration for the acquiring bank for settling the merchant establishment.
5.8 We further find that although the appellant in the course of adjudication proceedings had contended that the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in Standard Chartered Bank (supra) is not applicable to the present case, no discussion or counter response to that assertion has been made by the adjudicating authority in the impugned order. Per contra, during the hearing, the ld. AR made arguments that the said Larger Bench decision was very much applicable to the facts of the present case also. However, after careful perusal of the decision, we find ourselves in agreement with the ld. Senior Advocate. The issue in question in the Standard Chartered Bank case was whether interchange fee received by the issuing bank from the acquiring bank fell within the scope of the taxing entry of Banking and Other Financial Services and should be taxed whereas in the present case, the demand is raised under the taxing entry “Credit Card Services”, the definition of which is entirely different from the definition of Banking and Other Financial Services. Further, the premise in Standard Chartered Bank was that there was a service by the issuing bank to the acquiring bank. Therefore, the question of interchange fee was not in consideration before the Larger Bench of the Tribunal. We are also in agreement with the contention of the ld. counsel that in the Standard Chartered Bank case, it was not the submission of the assessee therein that interchange fee was not consideration for services. Therefore, the Tribunal did not have any occasion to examine whether or not the activity of issuing bank was a service and covered by the taxing entry for Credit Card Services.
5.9 We further find that in the recent decision of the Tribunal in ABN Amro Bank (supra), the case law of Standard Chartered Bank had been agitated before the Bench. Further, on going through Standard Chartered Bank decision, we find that the primary issue that was dealt with by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal was in respect of services provided by issuing bank to acquiring bank and acquiring bank to merchant establishment. The Tribunal had held that these were distinct services and outside the purview of Credit Card Services prior to 1.5.2006. Of course, the Larger Bench had held that interpretation in respect of the reference whether merchant establishment discount can be said to be “received in relation” to credit card services in particular transaction wherein bank receiving discount may not have received that and the credit card delivered.
5.10 Viewed in this light, notwithstanding the contentions of the ld. AR, we find that the Standard Chartered Bank decision of Larger Bench supra does not help the case of the Revenue and on the other hand it only, in our view, buttresses the stand of the case of the appellant.
5.11 Be that as it may, we find that in a very recent decision of the Tribunal in the case of ABN Amro (supra), it has been categorically held that the amount received by the appellant does not qualify as credit card services that when acquiring bank has discharged service tax liability on the entire amount, no service tax is payable by the appellant and that the amount offered by the appellant does not qualify a credit. The relevant portion of the order is as under:-
“5. Considered the submissions.
6. It is a fact on record that the acquiring bank is discharging his service tax liability on the amount in question, in that circumstances, no service tax is payable by the appellant (and the said fact has not been disputed by the learned AR during the course arguments) as held by the Hon‟ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Commissioner of C. Ex. Lucknow vs. Chotey Lal Radhey Shyam reported at 2018 (8) G.S.T.L. 225 (All.).
7. Moreover, we have gone through the definition as under Section 65(33A) Clause (iii) herein is reproduced below:-
“By any person, including an issuing bank and an acquiring bank, to any other person in relation to settlement of any amount transacted through such card.”
8. On going through the said definition, we find that if the appellant is receiving certain commission in relation to settlement of any amount, then and only then the said activity is covered under credit card services. Admittedly, the appellant is not engaged in any activity of settlement of the amount. In fact, the appellant is not the settlement agency and is acting only as issuing bank. It is admitted position by the learned Commissioner in the impugned order. In that circumstances, we hold that the amount received by the appellant does not qualify as the „credit cards services‟. 5 APPEAL No. ST/1921/2012-CU[DB] Therefore, we hold that the demand against the appellant is not sustainable.”
5.12 In the event, we find that the very issue that is in dispute in the present appeal has been conclusive decided by the Tribunal in the above final order (ABN Amro) against Revenue. We do not find any reason or cause to differ from the ratio laid down in that decision. This being the case, on this legal ground itself, the impugned order is not sustainable and will have to be set aside, which we hereby do. The appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any.
6. The miscellaneous application filed by Revenue for change of cause title is allowed.
(Pronounced in court on 16.11.2018)
