Declared Services are activities that have been specified in Section 66E of the Act. When such activities are carried out by one person for another in the taxable territory for a consideration then such activities are taxable services. Activity to be taxable should not constitute only a transfer in title of goods or immovable property by way of sale, gift or in any other manner.
♦ Mere transfer of title in goods or immovable property by way of sale, gift or in any other manner for a consideration does not constitute service.
♦ Goods has been defined in section 65B of the Act as ‘every kind of movable property other than actionable claims and money; and includes securities, growing crops, grass and things attached to or forming part of the land which are agreed to be severed before sale or under contract of sale’.
♦ Immovable property has not been defined in the Act. Therefore the definition of immovable property in the General Clauses Act, 1897 will be applicable which defines immovable property to include land, benefits to arise out of land, and things attached to the earth, or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth.
1 What is the significance of the phrase ‘transfer of title’?
‘Transfer of title’ means change in ownership. Mere transfer of custody or possession over goods or immovable property where ownership is not transferred does not amount to transfer of title. For example giving the property on rent or goods for use on hire would not involve a transfer of title.
2 What is the significance of the word ‘only’ in the said exclusion clause in the definition of ‘service’?
The word ‘only’ signifies the transactions which involve only transfer of title in goods or immovable property is not included as service. A transaction which in addition to a transfer of title in goods or immovable property involves an element of another activity carried out or to be carried out by the person transferring the title would not be excluded from the definition of service.
3 Would the answer to 2 mean that all composite transactions which in addition to a transfer of title in goods involve an element of provision of service be considered as a ‘service’ and taxable as such?
No. The manner of treatment of such composite transactions for the purpose of taxation, i.e. are they to be treated as sale of goods or provision of service, has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Union of India [2006 (2) STR 161 (SC)]. The relevant paras 42 and 43 of the said judgment are reproduced below –
“42. Of all the different kinds of composite transactions the drafters of the 46th Amendment chose three specific situations, a works contract, a hire purchase contract and a catering contract to bring within the fiction of a deemed sale. Of these three, the first and third involve a kind of service and sale at the same time. Apart from these two cases where splitting of the service and supply has been Constitutionally permitted in clauses (b) and (g) of Clause 29A of Art. 366, there is no other service which has been permitted to be so split. For example the clauses of Art. 366(29A) do not cover hospital services. Therefore, if during the treatment of a patient in a hospital, he or she is given a pill, can the sales tax authorities tax the transaction as a sale? Doctors, lawyers and other professionals render service in the course of which can it be said that there is a sale of goods when a doctor writes out and hands over a prescription or a lawyer drafts a document and delivers it to his/her client? Strictly speaking with the payment of fees, consideration does pass from the patient or client to the doctor or lawyer for the documents in both cases.
43. The reason why these services do not involve a sale for the purposes of Entry 54 of List II is, as we see it, for reasons ultimately attributable to the principles enunciated in Gannon Dunkerley’s case, namely, if there is an instrument of contract which may be composite in form in any case other than the exceptions in Article 366(29-A), unless the transaction in truth represents two distinct and separate contracts and is discernible as such, then the State would not have the power to separate the agreement to sell from the agreement to render service, and impose tax on the sale. The test therefore for composite contracts other than those mentioned in Article 366(29A) continues to be – did the parties have in mind or intend separate rights arising out of the sale of goods. If there was no such intention there is no sale even if the contract could be disintegrated. The test for deciding whether a contract falls into one category or the other is to as what is the substance of the contract. We will, for the want of a better phrase, call this the dominant nature test.”
The following principles emerge from the said judgment for ascertaining the taxability of composite transactions-
1. Except in cases of works contracts or catering contracts [exact words in article 366(29A) being – ‘service wherein goods, being food or any other article of human consumption or any drink (whether or not intoxicating) is supplied in any manner as part of the service’] composite transactions cannot be split into contracts of sale and contracts of service.
2. The test whether a transaction is a ‘composite transaction’ is that did the parties intend or have in mind that separate rights arise out of the constituent contract of sale and contract of service. If no then such transaction is a composite transaction even if the contracts could be disintegrated.
3. The nature of a composite transaction, except in case of two exceptions carved out by the Constitution, would be determined by the element which determines the ‘dominant nature’ of the transaction.
4. If the dominant nature of such a transaction is sale of goods or immovable property then such transaction would be treated as such.
5. If the dominant nature of such a transaction is provision of a service then such transaction would be treated as a service and taxed as such even if the transaction involves an element of sale of goods.
6. In case of works contracts and ‘service wherein goods, being food or any other article of human consumption or any drink (whether or not intoxicating) is supplied in any manner as part of the service’ the ‘dominant nature test’ does not apply and service portion is taxable as a ‘service’ This has also been declared as a service under section 66E of the Act. For guidance on these two types of composite transactions and the manner of determining the value portion of service portion of such composite transactions please refer to point Nos. 5.8 and 5.9 of this Guidance Paper.
7. If the transaction represents two distinct and separate contracts and is discernible as such then contract of service in such transaction would be segregated and chargeable to service tax if other elements of taxability are present. This would apply even if a single invoice is issued.
The principles explained above would, mutatis mutandis, apply to composite transactions involving an element of transfer of title in immovable property.
We have to host a party in a five star hotel. The hotel will provide the food as well as the hall for a small workshop. They insist to charge both sales tax and service tax on the full value of contract. Please elaborate on the issue.