License Fee & Spectrum Usage Charges Taxable under GST Law: Refund Claims Rejected

The adjudicating authority concluded that the payments for License Fee (LF) and Spectrum Usage Charges (SUC) are considered taxable supplies under the GST law. The refund claims were deemed not covered under specified categories, and the principles of natural justice were found to have been followed. As a result, all appeals filed by the appellant were rejected, and the payments for LF and SUC were upheld as subject to taxation under GST law.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether payment in the form of License Fee (LF) for issuance of License and Spectrum Usage Charges (SUC) for use of spectrum, as a percentage of the 'Adjusted Gross Revenue' (AGR) to 'Department of Telecommunications' (DoT) is a 'Supply' under GST law or notRs.
2. Whether issuance of license and allotment of spectrum as a 'Statutory fee' attract any levy of tax as per GST law.
3. Whether LF and SUC charges are 'consideration' for supply as per GST law or notRs.
4. Whether refund claim is covered under any other category specified under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 89 of CGST Rules, 2017Rs.
5. Whether License fee and Spectrum usage charges paid by the Appellant are covered in Service Rate Notification and are leviable to tax or notRs.
6. Whether clarifications or circulars can bring a levy or exempt a levyRs.
7. Whether issue can be decided where the issue is under litigation (writ petition filed by the appellant in the Hon’ble High Court, Delhi), whether it would be appropriate to grant/sanction refund at this juncture of timeRs.
8. Whether principle of natural justice has been properly followed in the instant caseRs.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Whether payment in the form of License Fee (LF) for issuance of License and Spectrum Usage Charges (SUC) for use of spectrum, as a percentage of the 'Adjusted Gross Revenue' (AGR) to 'Department of Telecommunications' (DoT) is a 'Supply' under GST law or notRs.

The term 'license' is covered under Sections 2(83) and 7 of the CGST Act, 2017, which defines 'supply' to include all forms of supply of goods or services such as sale, transfer, barter, exchange, license, rental, lease, or disposal made for a consideration by a person in the course or furtherance of business. The adjudicating authority concluded that the payment of LF and SUC constitutes a supply under the GST law.

Issue 2: Whether issuance of license and allotment of spectrum as a 'Statutory fee' attract any levy of tax as per GST law.

The adjudicating authority referenced the Constitution Bench decision in Har Shankar v. Dy. Excise and Taxation Commr., (1975) 1 SCC 737, which affirmed that 'license fee' is the price of consideration charged by the Government for parting with its privilege. The authority concluded that granting permission for establishing, maintaining, and working telegraphs and allocation of spectrum is a service falling under HSN Head 9973 38, which defines "Licensing services for right to use other natural resources including telecommunication spectrum."

Issue 3: Whether LF and SUC charges are 'consideration' for supply as per GST law or notRs.

The definition of 'consideration' under Section 2(31) of the CGST Act includes any payment made in respect of the supply of goods or services. The adjudicating authority found that LF and SUC paid by the appellant to the Government are 'consideration' for the supply of services, thus making them taxable under GST.

Issue 4: Whether refund claim is covered under any other category specified under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 89 of CGST Rules, 2017Rs.

The adjudicating authority concluded that the refund claim is not covered under the 'any other category' as specified in Section 54(3) of the CGST Act, which allows refund of accumulated input tax credit on 'input' only, not on input services.

Issue 5: Whether License fee and Spectrum usage charges paid by the Appellant are covered in Service Rate Notification and are leviable to tax or notRs.

The adjudicating authority found that the appellant had wrongly paid GST under HSN Head 9984 meant for Telecommunication Services, whereas the proper HSN head for the payment of GST under Reverse Charge Mechanism for 'Grant of License' and 'Allocation of Spectrum' is 9973 meant for 'Leasing and Rental services with or without operator.'

Issue 6: Whether clarifications or circulars can bring a levy or exempt a levyRs.

The adjudicating authority noted that statutory provisions under Sections 2(83) and 7 of the CGST Act clearly define 'license' as a supply, and thus, clarifications or circulars cannot override these statutory provisions to exempt a levy.

Issue 7: Whether issue can be decided where the issue is under litigation (writ petition filed by the appellant in the Hon’ble High Court, Delhi), whether it would be appropriate to grant/sanction refund at this juncture of timeRs.

The adjudicating authority held that since the issue is under litigation in the Hon’ble High Court, it would not be appropriate to grant a refund at this juncture, making the refund application premature.

Issue 8: Whether principle of natural justice has been properly followed in the instant caseRs.

The adjudicating authority found that proper opportunities were provided to the appellant by issuing show cause notices and conducting hearings. Therefore, the principle of natural justice was adhered to.

Conclusion:
The adjudicating authority rejected all five appeals filed by the appellant, concluding that the payments for LF and SUC are taxable under GST law, the refund claims are not covered under the specified categories, and the principles of natural justice were followed. The appeals were disposed of accordingly.

---