2025 (2) TMI 182 - AT - Service Tax

Service tax recovery appeal allowed on license fees and software expenses with all demands quashed

CESTAT Allahabad allowed the appeal regarding service tax recovery on license fees, documentation fees, and computer software expenses. The Tribunal ... Recovery of service tax with interest and penalty - amounts recorded as license fees, documentation fees, and computer software expenses in the appellant's books of account - applicability of service tax on transactions involving the transfer of technology and related documentation from foreign vendors to the appellant - Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The issue is no more res integra and this Bench of the Tribunal in Appellant’s own case being Service Tax Appeal No.70058 of 2019 having Final Order No.70784 of 2024 dated 02.12.2024 [2024 (12) TMI 281 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD] has decided the dispute in favour of the Appellant-Assessee. Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The invocation of the extended period of limitation was deemed inapplicable. Conclusion - i) The demand for service tax based on accounting entries was set aside. ii) The classification of transactions as 'Intellectual Property Services' was rejected. iii) The invocation of the extended period of limitation was deemed inapplicable. Appeal allowed. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal issues considered in this judgment include:Whether the amounts recorded as license fees, documentation fees, and computer software expenses in the appellant's books of account are liable to service tax under the Finance Act, 1994.The applicability of service tax on transactions involving the transfer of technology and related documentation from foreign vendors to the appellant.The validity of the demand for service tax based on accounting entries representing amortization of intangible assets.Whether the transactions in question fall under the category of 'Intellectual Property Services' as defined under the Finance Act, 1994.The applicability of the extended period of limitation for the demand of service tax.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS1. Liability to Service Tax on License Fees and Documentation FeesRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Finance Act, 1994, particularly Sections 66B and 68, read with Rule 2(1)(d)(G) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, govern the imposition of service tax on taxable services. The appellant argued that the payments were for the acquisition of intangible assets and not for services rendered.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the amounts in question were recorded in the appellant's books as amortization of intangible assets, not as payments for services rendered during the relevant financial years. The Tribunal referred to the Indian Accounting Standards (Ind AS) 38, which classifies such expenses as intangible assets rather than services.Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal found that the amounts were part of the appellant's accounting entries for amortization and not actual payments for services received. The Tribunal also noted that similar demands had been previously set aside in the appellant's own case.Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the relevant accounting standards and previous judicial decisions to conclude that the amounts were not liable to service tax as they did not constitute consideration for services.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal considered the Revenue's argument that the amounts were for services received but found no evidence of services being rendered during the disputed period.Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the amounts recorded as license fees and documentation fees were not liable to service tax as they did not represent payments for services.2. Classification of Transactions as 'Intellectual Property Services'Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The definition of 'Intellectual Property Services' under Section 65(55b) of the Finance Act, 1994, was considered. The appellant cited several precedents where similar transactions were not classified under this category.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal referred to previous decisions where the transfer of technology was not considered as a taxable service under the category of 'Intellectual Property Services.'Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal found that the transactions involved the transfer of technology and related documentation, which did not fall within the ambit of 'Intellectual Property Services' as defined in the Act.Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the legal definition and previous case law to determine that the transactions did not qualify as 'Intellectual Property Services.'Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's classification of the transactions as 'Intellectual Property Services' due to lack of evidence.Conclusions: The Tribunal held that the transactions were not liable to service tax under the category of 'Intellectual Property Services.'3. Applicability of the Extended Period of LimitationRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Tribunal considered the applicability of the extended period of limitation under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994, which requires evidence of intent to evade tax.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the appellant, being a government undertaking, did not have the intention to evade tax.Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal found no evidence of intent to evade tax, which is a prerequisite for invoking the extended period of limitation.Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the legal requirement of intent to evade tax and found it lacking in this case.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's reliance on the extended period of limitation due to the absence of intent to evade tax.Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the extended period of limitation was not applicable.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSCore Principles Established:Accounting entries representing amortization of intangible assets do not constitute consideration for services and are not liable to service tax.The transfer of technology and related documentation does not fall under the category of 'Intellectual Property Services' for the purpose of service tax.The extended period of limitation for service tax demands requires evidence of intent to evade tax.Final Determinations on Each Issue:The demand for service tax based on accounting entries was set aside.The classification of transactions as 'Intellectual Property Services' was rejected.The invocation of the extended period of limitation was deemed inapplicable.The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the appellant, setting aside the impugned order and granting consequential relief.