TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (4) TMI 780
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....id category of services with effect from 01.05.2006, the appellant was discharging its service tax liability. 2. The total charges collected by the appellant from their clients for providing the said services involve 4 components; one was the basic air fare on which the appellant is discharging the service tax liability. However in respect of fuel surcharge and administrative charges, no service tax liability was being paid by them. Similarly, in respect of passenger services, being collected from their client, no Service tax was being paid. 3. As per the appellant, there was lot of confusion in the field as regards the inclusion of fuel surcharge, administrative surcharge and passenger service fee in the assessable value of service. It w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s were not clear during the relevant period for which purpose Board has to issue a circular on 17.10.2006. The letter dated 17.10.06 addressed by the Deputy Secretary, TRU to the Board of Airline Representatives in India makes it clear that Circular stand issued on the basis of reference made by the said authority for clarification on various issues relating to levy of service tax on passenger embarking on international journey. It is only by way of said circular that it stand clarified that service tax is leviable on total value of the booking representing the consideration of single composite service. It was in these circumstances that the appellant deposited the tax subsequent to the clarification, along with interest. There was also dep....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se of other airlines similarly situate. 5. At this stage, learned advocate fairly agrees that there is a contrary order passed by the Tribunal in the case of British Airways PLC vs. CST, New Delhi [2013 (29) STR 177 (Tri-Del)]. By drawing our attention to the submissions made by the appellants in that case, he submits that it was pleaded before the Tribunal that levies and charges which are being collected by the appellant from their clients are on actual basis and are being reimbursed by them to the air port authorities, for whom them are acting as a machinery for collection of such levy charges. It was contended before the Bench that the same cannot be added in the value of services being provided by the appellants. However, the Tribunal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the value of the taxable service for the purpose of charging service tax under Section 66 as the gross amount charged by the service provider for such service provided or to be provided by him, in a case where the consideration for the service is money. The underlined words i.e. for such service are important in the setting of Sections 66 and 67. The charge of service tax under Section 66 is on the value of taxable services. The taxable services are listed in Section 65(105). The service provided by the petitioner falls under clause (g). It is only the value of such service that is to say, the value of the service rendered by the petitioner to NHAI, which is that of a consulting engineer, that can be brought to charge and nothing more. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....such as telephone charges, air travel tickets, hotel accommodation, etc. to enable him to effectively perform the services. The illustration, therefore, says that these expenses are to be included in the value of the taxable service. The illustration clearly shows how the boundaries of Section 67 are breached by the Rule. Apart from travelling beyond the scope and mandate of the Section, the Rule may also result in double taxation. If the expenses on air travel tickets are already subject to service tax and is included in the bill, to charge service tax again on the expense would certainly amount to double taxation. It is true that there can be double taxation, but it is equally true that it should be clearly provided for and intended; at a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ept that the old section did not have a provision similar to sub-section (4) of section 182. After 1956, therefore, so far as registered firms are concerned the tax payable by the firm itself has to be assessed and the share of each partner in the income of the firm has to be included in his total income and assessed to tax accordingly. If any double taxation is involved the legislature itself has, in express words, sanctioned it. It is not open to any one thereafter to invoke the general principles that the subject cannot be taxed twice over." Rule 5(1) of the said Rules is found to be ultra vires to section 66 and 67 and inasmuch as same travels beyond the scope of said section. As such, it can be safely concluded that Tribunals decisio....