Tribunal rules in favor of bank in service tax dispute over discount vs. commission

M/s. Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd., Chennai (now merged with ‘M/s. IndusInd Bank Ltd. ’) Versus The Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai (Vice-Versa)

M/s. Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd., Chennai (now merged with ‘M/s. IndusInd Bank Ltd. ’) Versus The Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai (Vice-Versa) - 2019 ... Issues Involved:
1. Whether the amount received from dealers by the assessee/Bank is subject to service tax under Business Auxiliary Services (BAS).
2. Whether the assessee acted as a Commission Agent.
3. Whether the Show Cause Notice was valid in alleging suppression of facts and invoking the extended period for demand.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Levy of Service Tax under BAS:
The primary issue was whether the amount received from vehicle dealers by the assessee (a bank engaged in providing Banking and other Financial Services) is subject to service tax under the category of Business Auxiliary Services (BAS). The Department contended that the amount received was a commission for promoting the business of the dealer, thus falling under BAS. The assessee argued that the amount was merely a discount, not a commission, and that their primary activity was disbursing loans, not promoting the dealer's business. The Tribunal concluded that the amount retained by the assessee was a discount and not a consideration for services rendered. Therefore, the activity did not fall under the definition of BAS as per Section 65(19) of the Finance Act, 1994.

2. Assessee Acting as a Commission Agent:
The Department alleged that the assessee acted as a Commission Agent, which is included under BAS. The Tribunal examined the definition of a Commission Agent and found that the assessee was not acting on behalf of the vehicle dealer for the purchase or sale of vehicles. The bank's role was limited to disbursing loans based on its own criteria and not promoting the dealer's business. The Tribunal held that the assessee was neither acting on behalf of the dealer nor providing any service to the dealer, thus not fitting into the category of a Commission Agent or under the definition of BAS.

3. Validity of Show Cause Notice and Limitation:
The Department issued a Show Cause Notice alleging suppression of facts with the intention to evade payment of service tax, invoking the extended period for demand. The assessee argued that they had disclosed the discount received in their accounts and had a bona fide belief that it was not subject to service tax. Since the Tribunal found in favor of the assessee on the merits of the case, it did not find it necessary to address the issue of limitation.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders, allowing the appeals filed by the assessee with consequential reliefs as per law and dismissed the appeal filed by the Department. The Tribunal concluded that the discount received by the assessee could not be considered as a consideration for service, and the activity did not fall under the definition of BAS.