Tribunal: Workwear rental deemed sale, not service for VAT

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, a workwear rental company, determining that the activity of renting workwear constituted a deemed sale subject to VAT, not a service subject to service tax. The appellant's ownership, control, and maintenance responsibilities over the workwear, as outlined in the agreements with clients, led to the conclusion that the activity did not amount to a service for taxation purposes. The Tribunal referred to its previous decision and the Commissioner (Appeals) order, setting aside the department's claim and overturning the impugned order for the period 2015-2017.

---

---

Issues:
- Whether the activity of renting workwear amounts to a service or deemed sale for the purpose of taxation.

Analysis:
The appellant, a subsidiary of Lindstrom OY Finland, leases workwear to clients under specific agreements. The terms include delivering, washing, and servicing customized workwear, with the appellant retaining ownership and exclusive rights for servicing. The dispute arose when the department claimed the activity as a service subject to service tax, while the appellant argued it was a deemed sale, already subject to VAT. The Tribunal had previously ruled in the appellant's favor for an earlier period, stating that workwear rental does not constitute a supply of tangible goods attracting service tax. The current case pertained to the period 2015-2017.

The appellant contended that the right of possession of garments was transferred to clients, but ownership remained with the appellant until redemption. The appellant maintained the garments and provided services essential for their maintenance. Citing the Supreme Court judgment in BSNL Vs. Union of India, the appellant argued that the activity should be considered a deemed sale, not a service. The department, represented by Ms. T. Sridevi, supported the findings in the impugned order.

The Tribunal referred to its previous decision and the Commissioner (Appeals) order, both concluding that workwear rental does not amount to a supply of tangible goods or services for service tax purposes. The terms of the agreements highlighted the appellant's ownership, control, and maintenance responsibilities over the workwear, leading to the conclusion that the activity did not constitute a service. Following the precedent and analysis of the Chandigarh Bench, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with consequential relief, if any. The demand raised by the department was deemed unsustainable, and the impugned order was overturned.

---