TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Service tax cannot be levied on notice pay received by employers from employees for premature resignation</h1> <h3>GIRNAR SOFTWARE PRIVATE LTD Versus COMMISSIONER Service Tax Division I, Jaipur</h3> GIRNAR SOFTWARE PRIVATE LTD Versus COMMISSIONER Service Tax Division I, Jaipur - TMI Issues involved:The issues involved in the judgment include the non-payment of Service Tax on a notice period recovery, demand of Service Tax under reverse charge mechanism on Renting of Immovable Property Service, and the interpretation of Section 66E(e) of the Finance Act, 1994.Issue 1: Service Tax on Notice Period RecoveryThe Department alleged that the appellant did not pay Service Tax on a notice period recovery amount received from an employee for giving up the job without prior notice. The Department contended that this amount falls under the category of 'Declared Service' u/s 66E(e) of the Act. The demand for Service Tax on this amount was confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals), leading to the appeal. The Tribunal held that the employer did not render any service but facilitated the employee's exit by imposing a cost for sudden termination. It was concluded that the amount received in lieu of notice period does not attract Section 66E(e) and is not liable for Service Tax.Issue 2: Demand of Service Tax under Reverse Charge MechanismInitially, the proposal included the recovery of Service Tax under reverse charge mechanism on Renting of Immovable Property Service. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) dropped this demand in the appeal. The Tribunal did not delve deeper into this issue as the demand was already dropped by the Commissioner (Appeals).Interpretation of Section 66E(e) of the Finance Act, 1994The Tribunal analyzed Section 66E(e) which defines 'Declared Services' to include agreeing to the obligation to refrain from an act, or to tolerate an act or a situation, or to do an act. The Revenue argued that the notice period amount constitutes payment for an obligation to tolerate an act or situation. However, the Tribunal referred to previous decisions and CBEC guidance notes to conclude that the employer did not render any service but allowed the employee's sudden exit upon compensation. It was held that the employer did not 'tolerate' any act of the employee, and the amount received in lieu of notice period does not give rise to the rendition of service, thus not attracting Section 66E(e).In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the Order-in-Original confirming the demand of Service Tax on the notice period recovery amount, as it was wrongly held to be towards rendering the Declared Service. The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
