Tribunal Overturns Interest Demand on Service Tax for Mobilisation Advances, Recognizes Advances as Secured Loans

The Tribunal set aside the demand for interest on the delayed payment of service tax on mobilisation advances received by the appellant, a construction service provider. It concluded that these advances, treated as secured loans in financial records, were not liable for service tax until included in the consideration upon raising invoices. The impugned order was overturned, and the appeal was allowed, with the Tribunal finding no merit in the Revenue's demand for interest based on the advances received.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Liability to pay service tax on mobilisation advances.
2. Determination of the point of taxation for mobilisation advances.
3. Applicability of interest on delayed payment of service tax.

Summary:

1. Liability to Pay Service Tax on Mobilisation Advances:
The appellant, M/s. Shankaranarayana Constructions Private Limited, was involved in rendering 'Construction Services'. The Revenue officers noticed that the appellant was not discharging service tax on mobilisation advances as and when received. The Commissioner held that the appellant is liable to pay interest under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994, for the delayed remittance of service tax on the advances received for the period April 2009 to September 2013.

2. Determination of the Point of Taxation for Mobilisation Advances:
The appellant argued that the mobilisation advances received from customers, such as BHEL and Jaipur University, were loans secured by bank guarantees and should not be considered as advances as per the definition of 'Service' in Section 65B(44) or as the value of taxable service under Section 67 of the Finance Act. They cited several judicial decisions supporting their claim that mobilisation advances are not liable for service tax until they form part of the consideration when invoices are raised.

3. Applicability of Interest on Delayed Payment of Service Tax:
The Revenue contended that the mobilisation advances were advances, and therefore, service tax was payable upon receipt. Since the service tax was paid later, interest was due for the delay. They relied on the decision in Siemens Ltd., where it was held that GST is leviable on mobilisation advances upon receipt.

Analysis and Findings:
The Tribunal examined the relevant sections of the Finance Act, 1994, and the Point of Taxation Rules, 2011. The appellant had discharged service tax on the gross amount received as per the relevant sections. The dispute was only about the delayed payment of tax on mobilisation advances. The Tribunal noted that the mobilisation advances were treated as secured loans in the appellant's financial records and were adjusted against the final payment upon completion of the project.

Judicial Precedents:
The Tribunal referred to several decisions, including:
- Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-I vs. Thermax Engineering Construction Co. Ltd.: Mobilisation advances treated as earnest money and not liable to tax until included in the consideration upon raising invoices.
- Gammon India Ltd vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai: Mobilisation advances are separate financial transactions within the contract for providing service and not included in the 'gross amount' under Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal found no merit in the demand for interest, assuming that the date of payment of tax arose based on the advances received. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

Order Pronounced:
The order was pronounced in Open Court on 13/10/2023.

---