2025 (3) TMI 574 - AT - Service Tax

Delayed Payment Charges by stockbrokers are penalty charges, not taxable service consideration under service tax

M/s India Infoline Limited Versus Additional Director General (Adjudication) New Delhi

M/s India Infoline Limited Versus Additional Director General (Adjudication) New Delhi - TMI ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal question considered was whether the Delayed Payment Charges (DPC) received by the appellant, a stockbroker, from their clients should be included in the taxable value for service tax purposes. Specifically, the issue was whether DPC constituted a separate service or was merely a penal charge for delayed payments, thus not subject to service tax.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISRelevant Legal Framework and PrecedentsThe legal framework involved the interpretation of Section 67 of the Finance Act, which defines 'consideration' for service tax purposes. The Tribunal also referenced Rule 6(2) of the Service Tax Valuation Rules, 2006, and several precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of Service Tax v. M/s Bhayana Builders and the Tribunal's decision in Religare Securities Limited v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi.Court's Interpretation and ReasoningThe Tribunal interpreted 'consideration' under Section 67 to mean any amount payable for the service that flows from the service recipient to the service provider, benefiting the latter. The Tribunal emphasized that DPC is not a consideration for the stockbroker service but a penal charge for delayed payment by the clients. The Tribunal relied on the CBEC Circular No. 137/25/2011, which clarified that DPCs are not includible in the taxable value as they are penal charges, not charges for providing taxable services.Key Evidence and FindingsThe Tribunal noted that the appellant had a single contract with their clients for the sale/purchase of securities, which included a clause for penal charges in case of delayed payments. The DPC was collected only from clients who delayed payments, reinforcing its nature as a penal charge rather than a service fee. The Tribunal found that the adjudicating authority ignored the department's own circular, which supported the appellant's position.Application of Law to FactsThe Tribunal applied the legal principles from the Finance Act and relevant case law to conclude that DPCs are not part of the taxable value for service tax purposes. The Tribunal reasoned that since DPCs are not collected from all clients and are contingent on delayed payments, they do not constitute consideration for a separate service.Treatment of Competing ArgumentsThe Tribunal considered the Department's argument that DPCs represented a separate service of extending credit facilities. However, it rejected this view, emphasizing that DPCs are penal charges for non-compliance with payment schedules and not a separate service. The Tribunal also noted that similar demands had been dropped in other cases, including one involving the appellant.ConclusionsThe Tribunal concluded that the DPCs are not taxable under the service tax regime as they do not constitute consideration for a separate service. The demand for service tax on DPCs was deemed incorrectly confirmed by the adjudicating authority.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSPreserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal ReasoningThe Tribunal held: 'The amount of DPCs are not collected from all the clients to whom the stock broker service are rendered by the appellant. These amounts are being collected only from those clients who have not paid the appellant within the time limit... To our opinion, the nature of amount of such DPCs is nothing beyond a penal charge.'Core Principles EstablishedThe core principle established is that penal charges for delayed payments, such as DPCs, do not constitute consideration for a separate service and are not includible in the taxable value under Section 67 of the Finance Act.Final Determinations on Each IssueThe Tribunal set aside the impugned order confirming the demand for service tax on DPCs, interest, and penalties. The appeal was allowed, and the demand was held to have been wrongly confirmed.