High Court sets aside Tribunal's order on software development service, emphasizes need for agreements.

The High Court partially allowed the revision, setting aside the Tribunal's order and remitting the matter back for review. The Court acknowledged the argument that unbranded software development is a service but emphasized the need for agreements/contracts to substantiate this claim. The Tribunal is directed to reconsider the case, taking into account the agreements/contracts provided by the revisionist and relevant legal precedents within three months.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Taxability of branded software versus unbranded software.
2. Classification of software development and support services as goods or services.
3. Admissibility of additional grounds in appellate proceedings.
4. Requirement of agreements/contracts to substantiate claims of software as services.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Taxability of Branded Software versus Unbranded Software:
The revisionist, a company engaged in software development and support services, contended that branded software sold off the shelf is taxable as goods under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, while unbranded software developed per client specifications is a service and not taxable as goods. The revisionist relied on the definition of 'goods' under Section 2(d) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act and argued that unbranded software does not fit this definition. The assessing authority, however, treated both branded and unbranded software as goods and imposed tax accordingly.

2. Classification of Software Development and Support Services as Goods or Services:
The revisionist argued that software developed according to client specifications (unbranded software) is a service, citing the Andhra Pradesh High Court's decision in Tata Consultancy Services vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, which distinguished between branded and unbranded software. The revisionist also referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Tata Consultancy Services (2005), which upheld the taxability of branded software but did not express an opinion on unbranded software. The Karnataka High Court's decision in Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd. further supported the revisionist's claim that software development for clients is a service, not goods.

3. Admissibility of Additional Grounds in Appellate Proceedings:
The revisionist sought to introduce additional grounds in the appeal, arguing that sales of computer hardware to PWD, U.P., were mistakenly shown as computer consultancy services and should be exempt from tax under Section 3-A of the Act. The appellate authority rejected this application, stating that it amounted to a contradiction. The revisionist contended that appellate authorities should allow new grounds, supported by various judgments of the High Court.

4. Requirement of Agreements/Contracts to Substantiate Claims of Software as Services:
The assessing authority issued a show cause notice requiring the revisionist to explain why no tax was deposited for software development sales. The revisionist replied, distinguishing between branded and unbranded software, but did not submit agreements/contracts to substantiate its claim that unbranded software is a service. The Tribunal upheld the assessment order, leading to the current revision. The revisionist argued that the assessing authority should have requested further details if needed, while the respondent contended that the revisionist failed to provide necessary agreements/contracts at any stage.

Conclusion and Remand:
The High Court concluded that the revisionist's claim regarding unbranded software as a service has merit but noted the absence of agreements/contracts before the assessing authority and appellate bodies. The Court emphasized that agreements/contracts are crucial to determine whether software development is a service. The Court remitted the matter back to the Tribunal to review the agreements/contracts and determine the taxability of the software development and support services. The Tribunal is directed to pass a reasoned and speaking order within three months, considering the judgments of the Supreme Court and various High Courts.

Order:
The revision is partly allowed, and the Tribunal's order dated 19.6.2006 is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for a fresh decision based on the agreements/contracts provided by the revisionist.

---