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>M&A advisory services including financial analysis and due diligence classified as taxable Business Management Consultancy Services</h1> <h3>M/s Fox Mandal & Co Versus Commissioner, Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Noida</h3> M/s Fox Mandal & Co Versus Commissioner, Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Noida - TMI Issues Involved:1. Classification of Services Provided2. Applicability of Service Tax3. Invocation of Extended Period of Limitation4. Imposition of Interest and PenaltyIssue 1: Classification of Services ProvidedThe appellant, a renowned law firm, contended that the services provided were purely legal and should be classified under 'Legal Consultancy Services' as per Section 65(105)(zzzzm) of the Finance Act, 1994. The Commissioner, however, classified the services under 'Management or Business Consultant Services' u/s 65(65) of the Finance Act, 1994, based on the nature of services detailed in the appellant's brochure, including due diligence, risk analysis, and management issues related to mergers and acquisitions.Issue 2: Applicability of Service TaxThe Commissioner confirmed the demand of Service tax Rs. 7,41,83,988/-, Edu Cess Rs. 14,83,680/-, and Secondary & Higher Edu. Cess Rs. 7,41,839/-, totaling Rs. 7,64,09,507/- u/s 73(2) of the Finance Act, 1994, for the period 2007-08 to August 2009. The appellant argued that the services provided were not exigible to service tax before 01.09.2009. The Tribunal upheld the classification under 'Management or Business Consultant Services' and remanded the matter for redetermination of the quantum of tax payable, excluding services that fall under 'Legal Consultancy Services.'Issue 3: Invocation of Extended Period of LimitationThe Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner that the extended period of limitation u/s 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, was rightly invoked due to the appellant's suppression of vital information, non-registration, and non-filing of ST-3 returns. The appellant's plea of bona fide nonpayment was rejected, citing the 2001 Board clarification on the levy of tax on services related to mergers and acquisitions.Issue 4: Imposition of Interest and PenaltyThe Tribunal upheld the imposition of interest u/s 75 and the penalty u/s 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The penalty u/s 78 was to be re-determined based on the re-determined quantum of tax payable in the remand proceedings. The Tribunal directed the adjudicating authority to decide the matter within three months of receipt of the order.Conclusion:The appeal was partly allowed, and the matter was remanded to the original authority for redetermination of the quantum of tax payable and the penalty u/s 78, based on the re-determined tax amount. The adjudicating authority was instructed to expedite the remand proceedings.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
