2025 (8) TMI 931 - AT - Service Tax

Rental of IT equipment involves transfer of possession and control, covered by VAT; service tax demand and penalties set aside

M/s. Gainwell Commosales Versus Commissioner of Service Tax, Kolkata

CESTAT Kolkata (AT) held that rental supply of IT equipment involved transfer of possession and effective control, bringing the transactions within VAT ... Taxability - supply of tangible goods service - deemed sale or not - effective control of the equipments which are rented out, are retained by the Appellant - transfer of right to use - reverse charge mechanism - demand of interest and penalty - HELD THAT:- The said issue has been examined by this Tribunal in the case of Computer Exchange Private Ltd. [2024 (6) TMI 501 - CESTAT KOLKATA] wherein the issue before this Tribunal was whether the supply of computer, monitors, laptops and other IT equipments by the appellant to his customers on rental basis would tantamount to ‘supply of tangible goods’ service or a ‘deemed sale’ as per Article 366 (29A) of the Constitution of India read with the definition of ‘sale’ as per the WBVAT Act, 2003 - Admittedly in this case, the appellant has paid VAT which is evident from the invoice raised by the appellant on the service recipient. Admittedly, the transaction in this case would fall within the ambit of VAT/CST if there is a transfer of right to use there should be transfer of right to possession and transfer of effective control. Admittedly, the appellant have transfer the right of possession and transfer the effective control of the equipments to their clients. In that circumstances, no Service Tax is payable by the appellant. Admittedly, in this case the appellant has paid VAT. Therefore, the Service Tax cannot be demanded from the appellant. The said issue has been settled by the Hon’ble Tribunal in the case of Oil India Limited [2024 (9) TMI 1793 - CESTAT KOLKATA] wherein it has been held that since VAT has been discharged by the CC same may be treated as exaggerate to Service Tax. And in the case of Imagic Creative Private Ltd [2008 (1) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT] the Hon’ble Apex Court held that payment of Service Tax as well as VAT are mutually exclusive. In view of the above we hold that as appellant has paid VAT on the transaction in question no Service Tax is payable by the appellant. Further it is found that post the period 01.07.2012 the provision of negative regime has not been invoked in this case. Therefore, no demand of Service Tax is sustainable against the appellant. The demand of Service Tax is not sustainable against the appellant. Consequently, the demand of interest and penalties are not imposable. The impugned order is set aside - appeal allowed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED 1. Whether the transaction involving renting out of equipment by the appellant amounts to a 'transfer of right to use goods' and thus qualifies as a 'deemed sale' under the respective State VAT Acts and Central Sales Tax Act, attracting VAT/CST instead of service tax. 2. Whether service tax is leviable under the category of 'supply of tangible goods service' under Section 65(105)(zzzzj) of the Finance Act, 1994, in respect of the equipment rental transactions. 3. Whether the appellant retained effective control and possession of the equipment during the rental period, thereby attracting service tax liability instead of VAT. 4. Whether the demand of service tax for the period post 01.07.2012 is sustainable given the introduction of the negative list regime. 5. Whether extended period of limitation can be invoked for the service tax demand in the present case. 6. Whether interest and penalty can be imposed when the principal demand of service tax is not sustainable. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 & 3: Whether the transaction constitutes a transfer of right to use goods (deemed sale) attracting VAT/CST or a supply of tangible goods service attracting service tax - Relevant legal framework and precedents: Entry 54 of List II of the 7th Schedule of the Constitution empowers States to levy tax on sale and purchase of goods. The 46th Amendment to the Constitution widened the definition of 'tax on sale or purchase of goods' under Article 366(29A)(d) to include 'a tax on the transfer of the right to use any goods for any purpose (whether or not for a specified period) for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration.' Correspondingly, State VAT Acts including West Bengal VAT Act, 2003 and the Central Sales Tax Act contain provisions defining 'sale' to include transfer of right to use goods. The landmark decision in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) v. Union of India established five essential attributes for a transaction to qualify as a transfer of right to use goods: Goods must be available for delivery; Consensus ad idem as to the identity of goods; Transferee must have legal right to use the goods with all permissions/licenses; Transfer of right to use must be exclusive to transferee (not merely a license); Transferred right to use cannot be further transferred by the owner during the period. Section 65(105)(zzzzj) of the Finance Act defines taxable service as supply of tangible goods including machinery, equipment, and appliances for use without transferring right of possession and effective control. - Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court analyzed the agreements between the appellant and customers, which clearly stipulated that: The equipment was delivered and available for use at customer's site, satisfying availability for delivery; The identity of equipment was clearly agreed upon; The customers had possession, control, and custody of the equipment during the contract period; The customers had exclusive right to use the equipment, with the option to operate the equipment themselves or through operators provided by the appellant, but with operational responsibility resting on the customers; The appellant's right was limited to inspection, which indicated transfer of possession and control rather than retention; The equipment could not be sub-leased or transferred by the customers to third parties during the contract period. Thus, the Court found that the essential attributes laid down in BSNL were fulfilled, establishing that the transaction was a transfer of right to use goods and accordingly a deemed sale under VAT/CST laws. - Key evidence and findings: Agreements, Income-cum-Delivery Challans, and invoices showing VAT charged and paid on rental transactions; contractual clauses emphasizing transfer of possession and control; option for customers to appoint operators; indemnity clauses; and inspection rights. - Treatment of competing arguments: The department contended that the appellant retained effective control due to maintenance obligations and provision of operators, thus attracting service tax. The Court rejected this, relying on precedents that maintenance or provision of operators does not negate transfer of possession and effective control when contractual terms vest such rights with customers. Decisions in Anandcine Services Pvt. Ltd., Express Engineers & Spares, Petronet LNG Ltd., and others were relied upon to support that maintenance and operator provision do not amount to retention of effective control. - Conclusions: The transaction constitutes a transfer of right to use goods, attracting VAT/CST as deemed sale, and not service tax under 'supply of tangible goods service.' The appellant's payment of VAT on these transactions confirms this position. Issue 2: Whether service tax is leviable under Section 65(105)(zzzzj) of the Finance Act on the transactions in question - Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 65(105)(zzzzj) covers supply of tangible goods service without transfer of possession and effective control. The negative list regime introduced post 01.07.2012 excludes such transactions from service tax if right to use is transferred. Decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court and CESTAT have held that VAT and service tax are mutually exclusive taxes. - Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court held that since the appellant transferred possession and effective control, the transaction falls outside the scope of Section 65(105)(zzzzj). Additionally, post 01.07.2012, the negative list regime applies, and the impugned orders confirming service tax demand under this provision are unsustainable. - Key evidence and findings: Invoices showing VAT payment, contractual terms transferring possession and control, and absence of invocation of negative list provisions by the department. - Treatment of competing arguments: The department's reliance on Section 65(105)(zzzzj) was rejected as the provision was inapplicable post 01.07.2012 and the facts did not satisfy its conditions. - Conclusions: No service tax liability arises under Section 65(105)(zzzzj) for the transactions in question, especially for the period after introduction of the negative list regime. Issue 4: Sustainability of service tax demand for the period post 01.07.2012 given the negative list regime - Relevant legal framework and precedents: The negative list regime introduced in the Finance Act from 01.07.2012 excludes certain services from service tax. The provisions of Section 65(105)(zzzzj) were repealed or rendered inapplicable post this date. CESTAT New Delhi's decision in Commissioner of Central Tax Goods and Service Tax, Delhi East v. M/s. Sanjay Electricals held that demand confirmed under non-existent provisions cannot be sustained. - Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court observed that the impugned orders confirmed demand citing Section 65(105)(zzzzj) for post 01.07.2012 period, which was not applicable. This amounted to non-application of mind and wrong invocation of law. - Conclusions: Service tax demand for the period post 01.07.2012 is unsustainable and liable to be set aside. Issue 5: Invocability of extended period of limitation for the service tax demand - Relevant legal framework and precedents: Extended period of limitation under service tax law is invokable only when there is suppression or fraud. Bona fide disputes or ambiguity in law do not justify extended limitation. Decisions in Carzonrent (India) Pvt. Ltd., Sant Roadlines, and Amit Metaliks Limited held that extended limitation cannot be invoked when the assessee is under bona fide belief regarding tax liability. - Court's interpretation and reasoning: The appellant was under bona fide belief that transactions were deemed sales attracting VAT and not service tax. The issue involved interpretation of law and facts. Hence, extended period of limitation could not be invoked. - Conclusions: Extended period of limitation invoked in the present case is not sustainable. Issue 6: Liability for interest and penalty when principal demand is not sustainable - Relevant legal framework and precedents: Supreme Court decisions in Pratibha Processors and Collector of Central Excise v. H.M.M. Limited established that interest is compensatory for lost revenue and penalty arises only if demand is sustainable. - Court's interpretation and reasoning: Since the principal demand of service tax is unsustainable, no lost revenue arises, and hence interest and penalty cannot be imposed. - Conclusions: Interest and penalty demands are liable to be set aside along with the principal demand.