TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the activity of mailing list compilation and mailing was taxable only from 16 June 2005 and not for the earlier period; (ii) whether the rebate or commission received from the postal authorities in relation to franking was chargeable to service tax as consideration for service to the Department of Posts; (iii) whether penalties were sustainable when the principal tax demand itself was partly unsustainable.
Issue (i): Whether the activity of mailing list compilation and mailing was taxable only from 16 June 2005 and not for the earlier period.
Analysis: The activity was specifically brought into the service tax net only from 16 June 2005 under the more specific taxable entry relating to mailing list compilation and mailing service. Taxing that same activity under a different entry for the prior period would be contrary to the legislative scheme and the specific date from which the service was made taxable.
Conclusion: The demand for the period prior to 16 June 2005 was not sustainable; tax on the service charges was confined to the period from 16 June 2005 onwards.
Issue (ii): Whether the rebate or commission received from the postal authorities in relation to franking was chargeable to service tax as consideration for service to the Department of Posts.
Analysis: The franking arrangement was held to be a transaction between the appellants and the post office, with the appellants acting as bulk mailers and customers of the postal system. The rebate was treated as a rebate for reduced workload and not as commission or remuneration for a service rendered to the Department of Posts. The statutory framework of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 supported the conclusion that the postal service was not being provided by the appellants to the Department of Posts.
Conclusion: The demand on the rebate obtained from the postal authorities was unsustainable and was set aside.
Issue (iii): Whether penalties were sustainable when the principal tax demand was partly unsustainable.
Analysis: Once the demand on the rebate was set aside and the taxability of the service charges was confined to the later period, the basis for the penalty confirmations did not survive to the extent imposed.
Conclusion: The penalties were set aside.
Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded in part: service tax was upheld only on the client service charges from 16 June 2005 onwards, while the tax demand on franking rebates and the penalties were set aside.
Ratio Decidendi: A rebate received for franking in the course of bulk mailing is not consideration for a taxable service to the Department of Posts, and a newly specified taxable service cannot be fastened for an earlier period before its notified effective date.
TaxTMI 
