BSNL franchisees win appeal against service tax demand on sim card sales commissions under Section 67

CESTAT Chandigarh allowed the appeal of franchisees appointed by BSNL for sim card sales services. The Tribunal held that when telecom operators discharge service tax on the entire MRP value of sim cards, no additional service tax liability arises on franchisees selling these cards to customers. The commission paid to appellants was already included in the value on which tax was collected from customers, making BSNL the service provider to customers. The demand was also barred by limitation, rendering the impugned order unsustainable in law.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of services provided by the appellant.
2. Demand of service tax under the category of 'Business Auxiliary Service'.
3. Applicability of extended period of limitation.
4. Previous adjudications and their impact on the current case.
5. Double taxation and revenue neutrality.

Summary:

1. Classification of Services Provided by the Appellant:
The appellant was appointed as a franchisee by BSNL for the sale and purchase of SIM cards. The department contended that the appellant was providing 'Business Auxiliary Service' (BAS) to BSNL and was liable for service tax. The appellant argued that their activities were purely sales transactions and not services, as evidenced by their financial records and the terms of their agreement with BSNL. They contended that the discounts received were essentially commissions on sales and not subject to service tax under BAS.

2. Demand of Service Tax under 'Business Auxiliary Service':
The department issued a show cause notice demanding service tax for the period 2005-06 to 2007-08, amounting to Rs. 3,84,323/-. The appellant cited multiple Tribunal decisions which held that dealers of telecom services, who receive commissions, are not liable to pay service tax under BAS. They argued that service tax had already been paid on the MRP of SIM cards and recharge coupons by BSNL, and hence, any additional tax on commissions would amount to double taxation.

3. Applicability of Extended Period of Limitation:
The appellant argued that the demand was time-barred as the department was already aware of their activities from a previous show cause notice issued in 2009. They relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Nizam Sugar Factory which held that suppression could not be alleged in subsequent notices for similar facts. The Tribunal agreed that the entire demand was barred by limitation.

4. Previous Adjudications and Their Impact:
The appellant highlighted that in a previous adjudication, the demand for service tax was dropped, and the department did not challenge this decision. They presented several Tribunal decisions supporting their stance that commissions on sales activities do not attract service tax under BAS. The Tribunal found these precedents applicable and persuasive.

5. Double Taxation and Revenue Neutrality:
The Tribunal noted that service tax on the MRP of SIM cards and recharge coupons was already paid by BSNL, and taxing the appellant on commissions would result in double taxation. The Tribunal cited various decisions, including those of High Courts, which supported the view that such commissions are not separately taxable.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the services provided by the appellant did not fall under 'Business Auxiliary Service' and that the demand for service tax was unsustainable. The Tribunal also held that the entire demand was barred by limitation. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

---