Brief facts arising for consideration of the case are that the appellant M/s Tata AIG Life Insurance Co. Ltd. are holders of service tax registration under the category of Insurance auxiliary services. The service rendered by insurance agents is covered under the category of insurance auxiliary services. However, the liability to pay service tax on such services is on the recipient of the services, which are the insurance companies who engage the agents as per the provisions of rule 2(1)(d)(iii) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. It was observed that the appellant had utilized input service tax credit in respect of service tax on insurance auxiliary services. The department was of the view that since the appellant is only a recipient of the service and is not providing any output service, they cannot utilize any input service tax credit for payment of service tax on Insurance auxiliary service.
Assessees have made out a strong prima facie case on the ground that, although they were charging management fees from the bank who lend/advance money to the SHGs, they were a non-profit making organization as no profit or income or profit was paid or transferred to their members directly or indirectly by way of dividend or bonus. This view finds support from the decision of the Tribunal in M/s. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection Vs CST, Mumbai [2007 (8) STR 529].
The issue involved in the matter is whether the trade discount amounts received by the appellant to be treated as commission and taxable under the Business Auxiliary Service or not. The liability in that regard is essentially to be decided on the basis of the provisions of law comprised under the service tax statute. Besides the provisions of the said rules which are brought to our notice rather than disclosing principal to principal relationship between the publisher of the newspaper and the appellants, overall reading of the said rules disclose certain disciplinary control by the Newspaper Society over the appellants as far as it relates to advertising services are concerned which would, prima-facie, disclose the trade discount to be in the nature of commission to the agents.
Explanation to Rule 6(1) of the Service Tax Rules provide that for removal of doubt, it is clarified that in case the value of taxable service is received before providing of the said service, then the service tax is required to be paid on the value of the service, then the service tax is required to be paid on the value of the service attributable for the relevant month or quarter as the case may be. Ld. Chartered Accountant for the appellants has also drawn our attention to the fact that the said explanation ceased to be on the statute book from 12 th September, 2007.
The assessee did not file ST-3 returns declaring the correct taxable value as prescribed. We find that the Joint Commissioner had held that the assessee was not liable to pay service tax on demurrage and handling charges with respect to export cargo/baggage in appellants’ own case. The Commissioner has refrained from confirming the demand for extended period. The circumstances clearly show that the appellant had not attempted to evade service tax due. Moreover, the liabilities confirmed followed interpretation of provisions which could also accommodate the view held by the appellants.
DIT Vs Ericsson AB (Delhi High Court)- It was argued that the Explanation as initially inserted in the year 2007 after subsection (2) of section 9 sought to clarify as to when income received by way of interest, royalty or fees for technical services, can be regarded as deemed to accrue or arise in India. The subsequent amendment made in the Explanation by the Finance Act, 2010 enacts a further clarification (by effectively adding clause (ii) in the Explanation) in so far as the taxability of fees for technical services are concerned. The Supreme Court in Ishikawajima (supra) has held that if the transfer of property in goods as well as the payment were both made outside India, the transaction of supply was not chargeable to tax in India inspite of the fact that the contract was signed in India.
In Re Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. (AAR) – Since the question whether the payment made under the transaction was chargeable to tax under the Act was pending before the authorities under the Act arising out of an assessment against ASE, before the applicant approached this Authority the allowing of this application under Section 245R(2) of the Act is barred. The bar is in entertaining an application where the question raised in the application is already pending before any income-tax authority. Since we have found that the question arising before us, the primary question, if not the only question, is whether the payment to be made by the applicant to ASE on the transaction(s) is chargeable under the Act is already pending in proceedings against the payee, ASE, entertainment of the present application is barred by clause (i) of the proviso to Section 245R(2) of the Act. We, therefore, reject the application.
Though the Income Tax Department made a provision for electronic filing of returns, it appears that the ITR-V Form containing the due verification of the return of the assessee was required to be remitted only by ordinary post. The instructions which were furnished to assessees, a copy of which has been placed on record, specifically stipulate that the ITR-V form should not be sent either by registered post or by speed post or courier.
GRIDCO Limited & ANR. Vs. Sri Sadananda Doloi & Ors. (SC) – There has been a notable shift from the stated legal position settled in earlier decisions, that termination of a contractual employment in accordance with the terms of the contract was permissible and the employee could claim no protection against such termination even when one of the contracting parties happened to be the State. Remedy for a breach of a contractual condition was also by way of civil action for damages/compensation.
Ina Raja Memorial Education Trust Vs DIT (Exemptions) – (ITAT Delhi) – In this case, the assessee made an application on 24.2.2011 in Form No. 10G, seeking renewal of exemption u/s 80G of the Act, which has been rejected by the ld. CIT(A) by observing that the assessee has failed to furnish bills/vouchers of expenses and certain other details as stated by him in para 2 of his order. In this connection, it is pertinent to note that proviso to clause (vi) of Section 80(G) sub-section (5) has been omitted by the Finance Act (No. 2) 2009 w.e.f. 1.10.2009.
