TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED
(i) Whether service tax could be demanded on "free services and facilities"/reimbursable expenses (transportation, medical, telephone, accommodation, etc.) for the period prior to 14 May 2015, when the demand was founded on Rule 5(1) of the 2006 valuation rules.
(ii) Whether, after 1 July 2012, the liability to pay service tax on the security services supplied by a Government department to a commercial business entity stood shifted entirely to the service recipient under a notification issued under section 68(2), thereby barring demand, interest, and penalty from the service provider (including for the post-14 May 2015 period).
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue (i): Taxability of reimbursable expenses/free facilities prior to 14 May 2015 under Rule 5(1)
Legal framework: The Tribunal considered the validity and effect of Rule 5(1) of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006 vis-à-vis section 67 of the Finance Act, as judicially determined, for valuing taxable services by including reimbursable expenditure/cost.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal held that for the period prior to 14 May 2015, the demand rested on Rule 5(1). Since the Supreme Court had already held that Rule 5(1) was ultra vires section 67 (pre-amendment), the Tribunal treated the matter as no longer open to debate and applied that binding determination to the present valuation-based demand on reimbursable/free facilities.
Conclusions: The Tribunal upheld the dropping of the service tax demand for the period prior to 14 May 2015 insofar as it was premised on including reimbursable expenses/free facilities under Rule 5(1).
Issue (ii): Effect of section 68(2) notification-whether the service provider remained liable post 1 July 2012 (including after 14 May 2015)
Legal framework: The Tribunal examined sections 68(1) and 68(2) governing who must pay service tax, emphasizing that section 68(2) empowers the Government to notify services where the service recipient becomes liable "as if" he were the person liable. The Tribunal also applied the principle that identification of the person liable to pay is an essential component of a valid tax charge.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal found there was no dispute that the service provider was a Government department and the recipient was a commercial entity. It further found that the services in question were covered by the relevant entry in the section 68(2) notification, and were not within the excluded categories. Consequently, under the notification, 100% of the service tax was payable by the service recipient and nil by the service provider. The Tribunal rejected the Commissioner's view that such shifting of liability was merely a "facilitation" and that the tax could still be demanded from the provider; it held that once the statute/notification fixes liability on the recipient, the tax cannot be levied from the provider. The Tribunal also held that the provider's past payment of tax could not create or shift the statutory charge, because tax liability flows from the charging provisions and valid notifications, not from a party's conduct.
Conclusions: The Tribunal held that after the notification came into force, the service provider had no liability to pay service tax on the services rendered to the recipient. Therefore, the demand of service tax, interest, and the penalty confirmed for the post-14 May 2015 period (and any demand sought against the provider for the period covered by the notification) could not be sustained, and the impugned order was set aside to that extent, with consequential relief.
TaxTMI 
