2024 (8) TMI 206 - AT - Service Tax

Dealership incentives for sales targets qualify as trade discounts not taxable services under Section 65B(44)

M/s. Dunac Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Jodhpur

M/s. Dunac Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Jodhpur - TMI Issues Involved:1. Taxability of discounts/incentives received by the appellant.2. Classification of the received amounts as consideration for services.3. Invocation of the extended period of limitation for issuing the show cause notice.Detailed Analysis:1. Taxability of Discounts/Incentives Received by the Appellant:The appellant, engaged in providing various motor vehicle services, received discounts and incentives from M/s. Tata Motors Ltd. (TML) and other lubricant companies. The department treated these amounts as consideration for services and issued a show cause notice demanding service tax. The appellant argued that these amounts were trade discounts, part of the sale agreement, and thus, not subject to service tax.2. Classification of the Received Amounts as Consideration for Services:The department's position was that the incentives/discounts were conditional upon achieving specified targets, thus qualifying as consideration for services under Section 65B of the Finance Act, 1994. However, the appellant contended that these amounts were part of a trade discount, prevalent in the market, and not consideration for any service. The Tribunal examined the dealership agreement and observed that the relationship was on a principal-to-principal basis, not principal-agent. Citing previous judgments, the Tribunal concluded that such incentives are trade discounts, not payments for services rendered. Specifically, the Tribunal referenced the case of Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai-I Vs. Sai Service Station, which established that target incentives are trade discounts and not subject to service tax.3. Invocation of the Extended Period of Limitation:The show cause notice was issued for the period from 2014-15 to 2017-18, invoking the extended period of limitation. The appellant argued that there was no suppression of facts or intent to evade tax, as they had already discharged tax liabilities on commissions and other income. The Tribunal found no evidence of suppression or concealment by the appellant. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector of Central Excise Vs. HMM Limited, the Tribunal emphasized that an inference of intent to evade tax cannot be automatically drawn without specific averments and findings. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the show cause notice was barred by time.Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that there was no service tax liability on the discounts/incentives received by the appellant, as these were trade discounts, not consideration for services. Additionally, the invocation of the extended period for issuing the show cause notice was unjustified. The findings of the original adjudicating authority were set aside, and the appeal was allowed.Order Pronounced: The appeal was allowed, and the findings of the original adjudicating authority were set aside.