Petitioner liable for service tax on compressor supply with manpower despite retaining equipment possession

The Delhi HC dismissed a petition challenging service tax liability for 2008-09 to 2014-15. The petitioner supplied compressors and equipment with manpower while retaining possession and control over the equipment. The court held this constituted taxable service under "supply of tangible goods" category since equipment was supplied without transferring possession rights to service receivers. The petitioner's argument that paying sales tax exempted them from service tax was rejected, as authorities determined no transfer of right to use occurred. The court found no merit in challenging the show cause notices and impugned order dated 28 November 2016.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions addressed in this judgment are:

• Whether the activities undertaken by the petitioner, involving the supply of compressors and related services to various companies, are subject to service tax under the category of 'supply of tangible goods services' as per Section 65(105)(zzzzj) of the Finance Act, 1994.
• Whether the transactions in question constitute a 'deemed sale' under Article 366(29-A) of the Constitution, thereby exempting them from service tax and subjecting them to sales tax/VAT instead.
• Whether the petitioner retained possession and effective control over the compressors and related equipment, thereby making the transactions liable for service tax.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Applicability of Service Tax under Section 65(105)(zzzzj)

• Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 65(105)(zzzzj) of the Finance Act, 1994, imposes service tax on services related to the supply of tangible goods without transferring possession and effective control. The provision excludes 'deemed sales' as defined under Article 366(29-A) of the Constitution.
• Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court analyzed the contracts and determined that the petitioner retained possession and effective control over the compressors, thereby falling within the ambit of Section 65(105)(zzzzj).
• Key evidence and findings: The court reviewed the terms of the contracts, which indicated that the petitioner was responsible for the operation, maintenance, and control of the compressors, supporting the conclusion that the petitioner retained effective control.
• Application of law to facts: The court applied the legal framework to the facts, concluding that the transactions were not 'deemed sales' and were subject to service tax as the petitioner retained control over the equipment.
• Treatment of competing arguments: The petitioner argued that the transactions were 'deemed sales' and subject to VAT, but the court rejected this, emphasizing the lack of transfer of possession and control.
• Conclusions: The court concluded that the petitioner's activities were liable for service tax under Section 65(105)(zzzzj) as the transactions did not constitute 'deemed sales'.

Issue 2: Determination of 'Deemed Sale' under Article 366(29-A)

• Relevant legal framework and precedents: Article 366(29-A) of the Constitution defines 'deemed sales', which include the transfer of the right to use goods. The Supreme Court's decision in BSNL vs. Union of India provided guidance on the attributes of a 'right to use'.
• Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court relied on precedents to assess whether the transactions involved a transfer of the right to use. It found that the petitioner did not transfer possession or control, disqualifying the transactions as 'deemed sales'.
• Key evidence and findings: The court examined contractual terms and found that the petitioner retained control and responsibility for the equipment, indicating no transfer of the right to use.
• Application of law to facts: The court applied the principles from BSNL and other cases, determining that the transactions did not meet the criteria for 'deemed sales' due to the retention of control by the petitioner.
• Treatment of competing arguments: The petitioner cited previous tax assessments and legal precedents to argue for 'deemed sale' status, but the court found these inapplicable based on the contractual terms.
• Conclusions: The court concluded that the transactions were not 'deemed sales' and were therefore subject to service tax, not sales tax/VAT.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

• Verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: "The Noticee was in possession and has exercised effective control over such compressors etc supplied to their customers. Therefore, there is no iota of doubt that the wet lease agreements for leasing the compressors and other equipments is a service falling under the taxable category of Supply of Tangible Goods Service."
• Core principles established: The judgment reaffirms that for a transaction to be classified as a 'deemed sale', both possession and effective control must be transferred. Absent these elements, the transaction is subject to service tax under Section 65(105)(zzzzj).
• Final determinations on each issue: The court determined that the petitioner's transactions did not constitute 'deemed sales' and were subject to service tax. The writ petition challenging the service tax liability was dismissed.

---