2024 (3) TMI 1341 - AT - Service Tax

Private wagon supply to Railways under investment schemes constitutes deemed sale, not service - no service tax applicable

M/s. Rashtriya Chemicals & Fertilisers Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise Service Tax (LTU), Mumbai

M/s. Rashtriya Chemicals & Fertilisers Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise Service Tax (LTU), Mumbai - TMI Issues Involved:1. Taxability of the supply of wagons under 'Own Your Wagon Scheme' as a service under Section 65(105)(zzzzj) of the Finance Act, 1994.2. Determination of whether the lease agreement constitutes a deemed sale under Article 366(29A) of the Constitution of India.3. Applicability of VAT versus Service Tax on the lease transaction.4. Interpretation of the lease agreement terms to ascertain the transfer of possession and effective control.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Taxability of the Supply of Wagons:The primary issue was whether the supply of wagons by private players to the Railways under the 'Own Your Wagon Scheme' or similar schemes constitutes a taxable service under Section 65(105)(zzzzj) of the Finance Act, 1994. This section defines taxable service as the supply of tangible goods for use without transferring the right of possession and effective control.2. Deemed Sale under Article 366(29A):The appellant argued that the lease agreement amounted to a deemed sale under Article 366(29A) of the Constitution, which includes the transfer of the right to use any goods for any purpose for cash, deferred payment, or other valuable consideration. The appellant had paid VAT on this transaction, treating it as a deemed sale.3. Applicability of VAT vs. Service Tax:The Commissioner rejected the appellant's claim that VAT payment precluded service tax liability, citing that the appellant had not paid the full VAT amount. The Commissioner referred to the Supreme Court decision in Idea Mobile Communication Ltd. to support the view that overlapping tax measures do not preclude service tax liability.4. Interpretation of Lease Agreement Terms:The lease agreement between the appellant and the Railways was scrutinized to determine whether it transferred the right of possession and effective control of the wagons to the Railways. The agreement specified lease charges, guaranteed clearance of traffic, maintenance responsibilities, and the ability of the Railways to make modifications to the wagons.Detailed Analysis:Taxability of the Supply of Wagons:The Tribunal examined whether the lease of wagons by the appellant to the Railways constituted a supply of tangible goods service under Section 65(105)(zzzzj) of the Finance Act. The Tribunal noted that this section applies if the supply is without transferring the right of possession and effective control. The Tribunal referenced the lease agreement terms to determine the nature of the transaction.Deemed Sale under Article 366(29A):The Tribunal considered whether the transaction was a deemed sale under Article 366(29A). The Constitution empowers the State to levy Sales Tax/VAT on transactions involving the transfer of the right to use goods. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's interpretation in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and other cases to identify the attributes of such transactions.Applicability of VAT vs. Service Tax:The Tribunal noted that the appellant had paid VAT on the transaction, treating it as a deemed sale. The Tribunal referenced Circulars from the department clarifying that payment of VAT indicates a transaction treated as a sale of goods, precluding the levy of service tax. The Tribunal also referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Quick Heal Technologies Limited, which outlined essential requirements for the transfer of the right to use goods.Interpretation of Lease Agreement Terms:The Tribunal analyzed the lease agreement terms, including lease charges, guaranteed clearance of traffic, maintenance responsibilities, and the ability of the Railways to make modifications to the wagons. The Tribunal concluded that the Railways had possession and effective control over the wagons during the lease period. The Tribunal referenced similar agreements in previous cases, including MSPL Ltd., where the Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's view that such transactions constituted deemed sales.Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that the lease of wagons by the appellant to the Railways transferred the right of possession and effective control to the Railways. Therefore, the transaction was a deemed sale under Article 366(29A) of the Constitution and was not subject to service tax under Section 65(105)(zzzzj) of the Finance Act. The Tribunal answered the reference accordingly and directed the Division Bench to hear the appeal on merits.