2025 (9) TMI 678 - AT - Service Tax

Dealer refurbishment of purchased cars is self-service, sale under Sale of Goods Act, no service tax payable

M/s. Popular Vehicles and Services Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai

CESTAT Chennai allowed the appeal, holding that refurbishment of purchased cars by the dealer constitutes self-service and not a taxable intermediary ... Levy of service tax - liability to pay service tax on the service portion involved in refurbishment while selling refurbished vehicle or whether the refurbishment of purchased cars amounts to self service - HELD THAT:- The issue has been examined by a Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in Commissioner Of C. Ex., Cus. & S.T., Cochin Vs Sai Service Station Ltd. [2017 (7) TMI 727 - KERALA HIGH COURT] where it was held that the sale of a motor vehicle is governed by the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, and not the MV Act. The dealer's transactions are sales and not services rendered as an intermediary or agent. In the facts and circumstances of the matter, no service tax is payable on self-service and the appeal succeeds. The impugned order is hence set aside. Appeal allowed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1.1 Whether refurbishment/restoration work carried out on pre-owned/used vehicles purchased by the dealer and carried out while the dealer has title constitutes a taxable 'service' attractable to service tax, or is 'self-service' incidental to a sale and therefore not liable to service tax. 1.2 Whether non-mutation/transfer of vehicle registration in RTO records at the time of acquisition by the dealer prevents transfer of property in goods for the purposes of the Sale of Goods Act and thereby creates a service tax liability on refurbishment activities. 1.3 Whether amounts recorded as refurbishment/repair expenses in the dealer's records can be treated as consideration received from customers so as to constitute taxable service receipts. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Taxability of refurbishment/restoration performed by the purchaser-dealer on used vehicles (self-service v. taxable service) Legal framework: Service Tax law taxes specified 'services' rendered to another. The Sale of Goods Act governs transfer of property in movable goods: a sale occurs when property is transferred for a price; where price is paid and property delivered the sale is complete. Tax is not leviable on activities undertaken by an owner for his own goods where there is no service rendered to another. Precedent Treatment: A coordinate bench of the Tribunal considered identical facts and held that refurbishment carried out by the purchaser during its period of ownership is not a taxable service but self-service; that view has been affirmed by the relevant High Court. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court examined whether refurbishment is a service rendered to any other person or an activity undertaken by the dealer as value addition while owning the vehicle. Since the first transaction (sale to the dealer) results in delivery and receipt of price, the vehicle becomes the dealer's property. Subsequent refurbishment/repair is performed by the dealer for itself to enhance resale value and is not performed for the seller or purchaser as an external service. Thus there is no separate service element interposed between distinct parties attracting service tax. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where property in a used vehicle has passed to the dealer, refurbishment performed by the dealer on its own property is not a taxable service. Obiter - ancillary comments on invoices and documentary clarity do not constitute the core holding. Conclusion: Refurbishment/restoration of used vehicles carried out by the dealer during its ownership is self-service and not liable to service tax; appeal allowed on this issue. Issue 2: Relevance of RTO registration/mutation for determining transfer of property in goods Legal framework: The Sale of Goods Act determines transfer of property in goods; statutory registration under the Motor Vehicles Act concerns RTO records and third-party liability and is procedural, not determinative of transfer of property under the Sale of Goods Act. Precedent Treatment: The Tribunal relied on reasoning in a High Court decision which emphasized that sale of movable goods is complete upon payment and delivery and does not depend on registration formalities; registration is a consequence of sale, not a condition precedent. Interpretation and reasoning: The impugned orders treated non-mutation in RTO as indicating non-transfer of ownership and thereby characterized refurbishment as a service. The Court rejected that approach: absence of immediate registration does not negate transfer of property when price and delivery have occurred. Consequently, the assumption that title remains with the prior owner until RTO mutation is incorrect for purposes of assessing service tax liability on refurbishment. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - RTO mutation/registration is irrelevant to the question of transfer of property in movable goods under the Sale of Goods Act; therefore registration formalities cannot be used to convert owner's self-work into a taxable service. Obiter - reference to third-party liability aspects under Motor Vehicles Act. Conclusion: Non-mutation of vehicle registration at the time of physical acquisition does not preclude transfer of property or convert owner's refurbishment into a taxable service. Issue 3: Treatment of refurbishment expenses as consideration received from customers Legal framework: To attract service tax, there must be consideration received for a taxable service rendered to another person. Accounting entries or expense classifications do not by themselves convert internal value-addition into taxable receipts unless there is proof of service supplied to a distinct customer for consideration. Precedent Treatment: The Tribunal examined earlier findings and observed that there was no clear finding that refurbishment was performed for and billed to any third party; previous decisions rejected treatment of such internal costs as service receipts when refurbishment was undertaken during the dealer's ownership. Interpretation and reasoning: The appellate and original authorities treated refurbishment expenses listed in annexures as income from customers. The Court found no satisfactory basis in the record for treating those expenses as consideration for services rendered to others: invoices and accounts did not demonstrate that the activities were performed for sellers or buyers as separate services. Refurbishment was concluded to be incurred as part of value addition by the owner prior to resale. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - internal refurbishment costs incurred while in ownership are not consideration for a taxable service absent evidence of rendition of service to another; Obiter - comments on the adequacy of documentary scrutiny by the Commissioner. Conclusion: Expenses for refurbishment, when incurred by the dealer as value addition during ownership and not billed as services to other parties, cannot be treated as taxable service receipts. Cross-references and Consolidated Conclusion CR1: Issues 1-3 are interrelated: once the first transaction is held to be a sale (price received and property delivered), the vehicle is the dealer's property (see Issue 2) and subsequent refurbishment is self-service (Issue 1), so refurbishment costs cannot be treated as service consideration (Issue 3). CR2: The Court followed the coordinate bench and affirmed High Court reasoning that transfer of ownership for movable goods is governed by the Sale of Goods Act and is not dependent on RTO registration; accordingly, the impugned conclusion that refurbishment attracted service tax was set aside.