TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
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
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the supply and use of printers and multifunctional printers under the onsite, offsite and OFE models constituted supply of tangible goods liable to service tax; (ii) Whether the services rendered could be classified as Business Support Services and whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked.
Issue (i): Whether the supply and use of printers and multifunctional printers under the onsite, offsite and OFE models constituted supply of tangible goods liable to service tax.
Analysis: The taxable entry under section 65(105)(zzzzj) of the Finance Act, 1994 applies only where goods are made available for use without transferring possession and effective control. In the onsite model, the printers were installed at the customers' premises and were used by them for their own requirements, while the appellant only provided maintenance and consumables. The arrangement was treated as deemed sale under VAT law, and the Board's circular clarified that a transaction attracting VAT as a transfer of right to use goods would not attract service tax. In the offsite model, the work was undertaken at the appellant's premises and the activity was essentially printing work with deductible material cost, for which the benefit of Notification No. 12/2003-ST was available. In the OFE model, the customers owned the printers and the appellant only provided consumables and maintenance support.
Conclusion: The transactions did not amount to supply of tangible goods, and service tax was not leviable on that basis.
Issue (ii): Whether the services rendered could be classified as Business Support Services and whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked.
Analysis: The services undertaken did not fit the statutory description of support services of business or commerce under section 65(104c) read with section 65(105)(zzzq) of the Finance Act, 1994. The department had adopted different classifications for substantially the same period and same activity, which showed that the correct classification was not clear and negatived suppression. The appellant's activities also did not answer the statutory ingredients of Business Support Services, and the demand could not survive on that basis.
Conclusion: The services were not classifiable as Business Support Services, and invocation of the extended period of limitation was not justified.
Final Conclusion: The demands were unsustainable on both proposed classifications, and the appeals were allowed.
Ratio Decidendi: A transaction is taxable as supply of tangible goods only when possession and effective control are not transferred, and a transaction treated as deemed sale and subjected to VAT cannot be brought to service tax on that basis; where the activity does not fit the statutory service classification, the demand and extended limitation cannot be sustained.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
