AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (11) TMI 948
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... rendered by the appellant? (2) When M/s Toyota Kirloskar allowed discount in price of vehicles depending upon the quantum of vehicles purchased by the appellant, whether such discount is in the nature of commission and chargeable to service tax under "Business Auxiliary Service" category? (3) Whether the appellant is liable to pay amount @ 5% or 7% of the trading activity in view of availment of credit on common input services or proportionate reversal of Cenvat attributable to trading business was substantial compliance of Rule 6(3) of Cenvat credit Rules? Whether Rule 6 was applicable to "trading" prior to 01.04.2011? (4) Whether Cenvat credit for steel and cement used for construction of showrooms was liable to be recovered from the appellant, though such Cenvat was reversed by the appellant and such reversal was recorded in journal vouchers and books of accounts? 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a licensed/ approved dealer of M/s Toyota Kirloskar Motors Pvt. Ltd. who are manufacturer of Toyota brand vehicles and also spare-parts of such vehicles. Accordingly, M/s. Toyota Kirloskar have been selling vehicles as well as spare....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by M/s Toyota Kirloskar to the appellant on the basis of quantum of vehicles purchased by the appellant. The department treated the said discount as commission and proposed the demand of Service Tax on such commission under business auxiliary services category. (3) Since, the appellant have availed the Cenvat credit on common input services demand was made @ 5%/6%/7% of the value of the trading business of the appellant interms of Rule 6(3) of Cenvat credit Rules for the period prior to 01.04.2011 and thereafter also. (4) The appellant is not entitled for Cenvat credit on the cement and steel used for construction of their showrooms. On the above issues the Adjudicating Authority has adjudicated 7 show cause notices by one common impugned order dated 11.01.2021. The detail of the demand as per show cause notice is as under: Sr. No. SCN No.& Date Service tax on spare parts and lubricants Service Tax on" Sales incentive" Demand under Rule6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. Cenvat credit on cement and steel Total of SCN (Rs.) (Rs.) (Rs.) (Rs.) (Rs.) 1. STC/4 - 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Manufactures Pvt. Ltd. 2015 (38) STR 1191 • Seva Automotive Manufacturers Pvt Ltd. 2015 (37) STR 747 • Ketan Motors Ltd.- 2014 (33) STR 165 • Sai Powers -2017 (5) GSTL 377 3.1 He further submits that the learned Commissioner has gravely erred in confirming the demand that "during course of personal hearing in respect of show cause notice dated 13.05.2014, the appellant was specifically asked to produce invoices to show VAT payment, but the appellant produced only 7 bills under a letter dated 06.07.2011 and that the appellant has not produced VAT returns." He submits that the said statement of the Commissioner is suffered from factual error as the personal hearing was conducted only in respect of one show cause notice on 14.07.2016 when the appellant was asked to submit specimen bills of the Authorized Service Station, and extract of ledger and some accounting details. The appellant under the covering letter dated 28.07.2016 submitted specimen bills and other accounting details. No further documents were ever called for thereafter, and the personal hearing for all 7 show cause notices was thereafter held after 4 years, on 23.09.2020, and dur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thorized dealer of M/s Toyota Kirloskar, and that the appellant was trading in Toyota vehicles. This fact was even otherwise clear from the statement of the appellant's manager (Administration and Accounts) recorded during the investigation in none of the show cause notice, the appellant is referred to as a commission agent of M/s. Toyota Kirloskar, and there was no dispute that the appellant was purchasing vehicles from M/s Toyota Kirloskar, and thus transaction was on principle to principle basis. 3.3 As regard the demand of an amount 5% or 7% in terms of Rule 6(3) of Cenvat credit Rules. He submits that purchasing and selling of motor vehicles is a trading activity, but such trading was not in the nature of "exempted services" till 31.03.2011. By amending Rule 6(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules by Notification No. 3/2011-CE (NT) dated 01.03.2011, trading was deemed to be exempted service from 01.04.2011 only. Therefore, Cenvat credit of common input services was not to be reduced or denied even if such service were attributable to trading activity, upto 31.03.2011. In support of his this submission, he placed reliance on the following judgments: • My Car (Bhopal) Pvt. L....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rameswaram, Learned Joint Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the finding of the impugned order. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and perused the records. 5.1 The Adjudicating Authority has confirmed the demand on the following counts: (1) Service tax demand on value of spare parts and lubricants by including the same in the Gross value of Service of Authorized Service station services. (2) Service Tax demand on sales incentives provided by M/s. Toyota Kirloskar to the appellant in relation to sale of their vehicles. (3) Demand of Cenvat under Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules equal to 5/7% of the value of trading activity. (4) Demand of Cenvat credit availed on cement and steel. 5.2 As regard demand on value of spare parts and lubricants, the Adjudicating Authority held that the value of spare parts and lubricants should be included in the Gross value of Authorized Service Station Services. In this regard to ascertain the actual nature of the transaction, we reproduce the relevant invoice for service of Authorized Service Station and spare parts and lubricant, the same is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ervice Tax as held in various judgments, some of the judgments are cited below: • Star Motors Vs. CCE, Nagpur- 2017(5) GSTL 306 (Tri.-Mumbai) "4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. On perusal of the sample invoice of the authorized service station, we find that the parts used for providing repair and maintenance service of the vehicle, the same is clearly sold to the client on which the VAT was paid. Therefore the parts used for providing repair and maintenance service is sale of goods and not part of service, therefore the same is not taxable under the Finance Act, 1994. Moreover, even if the part replaced during repair and maintenance of the vehicle is considered as part of the overall service of the authorized service station, since the description of parts of quantity and value was clearly shown separately in the invoice the same is covered under exemption Notification No. 12/2003- S.T. and for this reason also no service tax can be demanded on the sale of the parts. As per our above discussion, we are of the considered view, that service tax on the value of parts used for repair and maintenance of vehicle is clearly not s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o Rs. 5,81,935/- with interest and further proposal of penalty under Sections 76, 77 & 78 of the Finance Act. 2. The appellant contested the show cause notice by filing a written submission pointing out that they are showing the spare parts and lubricants separately in the invoice on which VAT/Sales Tax is being paid and on service components and labour charges, the Service Tax is being paid. Thus, no Service Tax can be levied on the sale of goods. 3. The show cause notice was adjudicated vide Order-in-Original dated 8-3-2013 and reduced amount of Rs. 4,74,146/- was confirmed considering that the appellant have already deposited an amount of Rs. 1,10,635/- for the period April, 2011 to December, 2011 which was confirmed by the Asstt. Commissioner along with interest and further penalty was imposed under Section 76 @ Rs. 200/- for every day during failure continue or at the rate of 2% of such tax, per month, whichever is higher up to the period 9-5-2008. Penalty of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed under Section 77 and Rs. 4,74,146/- under Section 78 of the Finance Act. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who vid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... nature of integral part of the service." Accordingly, he urges that in view of the categorical finding that the appellants have charged the spare and lubricants separately in their invoice and have paid Sales Tax on the same, no Service Tax can be demanded and the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in holding that Service Tax is applicable on the goods and lubricants observing that the service is not complete without using of consumables and lubricants. 6.2 The learned Counsel further points out that ruling of the Tribunal in the case of Samtech Industries (supra) has been upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad reported at 2015 (38) S.T.R. J434. The learned Counsel also brings to our notice that in similar facts and circumstances in the case of M/s. BalajiTirupati Enterprises, the C.B.E. & C. (Legal Cell) vide their letter dated 27-9-2013 addressed to the Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut has observed as follows : - "The matter has been examined. Upon examination, it has been observed that the party has specifically mentioned the cost of items supplied/sold and there is documentary proof specifically indicating value of the goods. In th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lants' contracts with their customers have to be treated as split contracts for supply of goods and rendering the service. When the value of the goods used has been shown separately in the invoices and Sales Tax/VAT has been paid on the same, the supply of the goods would have to be treated as sale and the transactions which are sale, cannot be the part of service transaction. In view of this, we hold that Service Tax would be chargeable only on the Service/Labour charges i.e. on service component and the value of goods used for repair would not be includible in the assessable value of the service. The ld. DR has cited Rule 5(1) of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006 accordingly to which that "where any expenditure or costs are incurred by any service provider in the course of providing a taxable service, all such expenditures or costs shall be treated as consideration for the taxable service provided or to be provided and shall be included in the value of the services for the purpose of charging Service Tax on the said service, unless such costs or expenditure have been incurred by the service provider as "Pure Agents" of the service recipient. However, this Rule ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rice charged by authorised service station for engine oil, gear oil and coolants, etc., is towards the sale of these consumables to the customer. Therefore, the sale of consumables during course of providing service is akin to sale of parts/accessories and therefore value of such consumables is not includible in the value of taxable services provided value of such consumables is shown separately. (iv) The respondents had provided to the Commissioner (Appeals) their assessment orders of the Trade Tax department, Moradabad, for the financial years 2006-07 & 2007-08 showing sale value of spare parts/accessories/consumables and it is this value which has been taken for computing the impugned demand. 3. The Revenue has filed the appeal on the following grounds : (i) Board Circular No. 96/7/2007-S.T., dated 23-8-2007 (para 36.03) has specifically clarified that Service Tax is not leviable on a transaction treated as sale of goods and subjected to levy of Sales Tax/VAT. Whether a given transaction between the service station and the customer is a sale or not, is to be determined taking into account the real nature and material facts of the transaction. Payment o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....st thereon apart from imposing penalties under Sections 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 on the appellant, M/s. Automotive Manufacturers Private l.td., Nagpur, by setting aside the order of the adjudicating authority vide order No. 90/STC/2007-08 dated 13-3-2008. Aggrieved of the same, the appellant is before us. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is an authorised dealer of MarutiUdyog Ltd., and are registered with the department as an authorised service station for Maruti cars and they have been discharging/Service Tax liability on servicing/repairing of the vehicles undertaken by them. While repairing or servicing of the vehicles, they also sometimes used parts on which sales tax/VAT liability is discharged. The parts and components are procured from M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd. and they have lifted these parts from the warehouse/depots of Maruti Udyog Ltd. For bringing these parts into their service station, they have to incur octroi and other local taxes, freight, loading and unloading charges, etc. Therefore, while selling these parts to the clients as part of servicing activity, they include the cost incurred by them towards freight, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d submits that since the handling charges are service rendered, service tax is leviable and accordingly, seeks to sustain the demands. 5. We have carefully considered he submissions made by both the sides. We notice that the appellant are charging handling charges whenever automobile parts are sold either independently or part of the service and repair of automobiles. In both the situations, invoice are issued for the sale of the goods as well as for collection of service charges for the services rendered. Handling charges were incurred in connection with the procurement of the goods and are included in the value of the goods sold and sales tax/VAT liability is discharged on the value inclusive of the handling charges. Therefore, we do not understand how service tax levy would apply especially when the goods are subject to sales tax/VAT on a value inclusive of handling charges. It is not in dispute that the handling charges are incurred in connection with the procurement of the parts. If that be so, they will obviously form part of the value of the goods when they are subsequently sold. 5.1 Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994 mandate levy of service tax on a value....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f sales tax/VAT on the spare parts, then the value of such spare parts would not be includible in the gross consideration received for rendering of service. The Commissioner has not considered these submissions made by the appellant and also the clarifications issued on the matter. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the matter has to go back to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration. First of all, all the transactions involving only sale of spare parts should be excluded for the purpose of computation of service tax demand. Secondly, even in a case where the transaction involves both sale of spare parts and also rendering of service, the value of sale of spare parts should be excluded if sales tax/VAT liability has been discharged on such sales as is evident from the invoices/bills issued in this regard. The appellant is directed to produce before the adjudicating authority all the evidences they would like to rely upon in support of their above contention. 6. Thus, the appeal is allowed by way of remand. The stay application is also disposed of." From the above judgments it is seen that various Benches of this Tribunal have taken a consistent vie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the appellant to the customers on principal to principal basis and not on behalf of M/s Toyota Kirloskar Motors Pvt Ltd. Therefore, the appellant in this transactions is not an agent of M/s. Toyota Kirloskar Motors Pvt Ltd but a buyer of goods. In the course of this trading activities the seller M/s Toyota Kirloskar Motors Pvt Ltd. gives incentive to the appellant on the basis of quantum vehicles purchased by them from M/s Toyota Kirloskar Motors Pvt Ltd. This incentive is nothing but trade/ quantity discount against the purchase of the vehicle by the appellant from M/s Toyota Kirloskar Motors Pvt Ltd. This fact is not under dispute. 5.4 From the record, it is observed that this issue had been raised earlier also in the appellant's own case by the department, wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) has passed an Order having Order-in-Appeal No. AHM-SVTAX 000-APP-66-16-16-17 dated 11.08.2016 and decided the issue of sales incentives in the favour of the appellant. This case was remanded by the CESTAT vide Order No. S/1063/WZB/AHD/2011 and M/1318/WZB/AHD/2011 dated 27.07.2011 wherein this Tribunal directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to set aside the demand of service tax on sales ince....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e case of Sai Service Station (supra). Therefore, we reject the appeal of the department." • Rohan Motors Ltd. V/s. CCE, Dehracun- 2021(45) GSTL 315 (Tri.- Del.) "10. As noticed above, the appellant purchases vehicles from MUL and sells the same to the buyers. It is clear from the agreement that the appellant works on a principal to principal basis and not as an agent of MUL. This is for the reason that the agreement itself provides that the appellant has to undertake certain sales promotion activities as well. The carrying out of such activities by the appellant is for the mutual benefit of the business of the appellant as well as the business of MUL. The amount of incentives received on such account cannot, therefore, be treated as consideration for any service. The incentives received by the appellant cannot, therefore, be leviable to service tax." • Prabhakar Marotrao Thaokar & Sons V/s. CCE, Nagpur-2019 (20) G.S.T.L 294 (Tri.-Mum.) "4.On careful consideration of the submissions made by both the sides and on perusal of records. We find that as per the agreement particularly the following clause: "5. The Wholesale Distributor ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsactions i.e. purchase and sale of the goods are identical and it was consistently held that any incentive/discount given by the motor vehicle manufacturer as a seller of vehicle to the dealer as purchaser of the vehicle will not amount to Commission under Business Auxiliary Service. Therefore, the same being not consideration of any service shall not be liable to Service Tax. Following the above judgments and discussion made by us hereinabove, we are of the considered view that the incentive given by M/s Toyota Kirloskar Motors Pvt Ltd to the appellant is not an amount of commission but being a trade discount is not liable for Service Tax. 5.4 The Adjudicating Authority also confirmed demand of an amount equal to 5%/6%/7% of the value of trading activity in terms of Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, on the ground that the appellant have availed Cenvat credit in respect of common input service, which is used for their taxable services as well as exempted services namely 'trading activity' of the vehicles, spare parts etc,. Consequently, Rule 6(3) was invoked according to which when an assessee avails the Cenvat credit on common input service used in taxable and exempted s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g, which was also carried out by the appellant from the same premises, in addition to carrying out the service of authorized service for four wheelers, is to be considered as an exempted service but both the authorities below dropped the demand and, hence, the Revenue is in appeal before us. 3. With the above background, we heard Shri Amresh Jain, Learned DR for Revenue and Shri Milind Sharma Learned C.A. for assessee. The Learned DR submitted that the activity of trading has been specifically included as an exempted activity w.e.f. 1-4-2011 by way of amendment carried out in the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 vide Notification No. 13/2011-C.E. (N.T.), dated 31-3-2011. He argued that the activity of trading has to be considered as an exempted service even for the disputed period i.e. 1-4-2010 to 31-3-2011. 4. The Learned Consultant representing the respondent, however, argued that trading has been included as an exempted service specifically vide the notification referred above. The notification cannot be held to be having retrospective effect and consequently he prayed that the impugned order may be sustained. He also brought to our notice that the Department also had....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... confirming the demand, culminated in the impugned order dated 16-4-2013. Hence this present appeal is before the Tribunal. 3. The term "exempted services" has been defined in Rule 2(e) of the Rules to mean taxable services which are exempted from the whole of the service tax leviable thereon, and include services on which no service tax is leviable under Section 66 of the Finance Act. The definition of exempted service was amended vide Notification No. 3/2011-C.E. (N.T.), dated 1-3- 2011. The effect of the amendment is that an explanation was added to the said Rule, clarifying that "exempted service includes trading". On perusal of both unamended and amended provisions of exempted service, it reveals that the activity of trading was not included within the ambit of definition prior to 1-4-2011. In this case, since the dispute is up to the period of 2009-2010, the amended definition of exempted service would not be applicable. Thus, the embargo credit in Rule 6(3) of the Rules does not have any application for taking of Cenvat credit on the activities concerning provision of taxable service and trading activity. Hence, denial of Cenvat credit by the authorities below, in m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l. 3. Heard the learned counsel for appellant-manufacturer who submitted that before 1-4-2011, there was no provision in the law to treat trading as service. 4. Heard the learned DR, who has supported the grounds of appeal filed by Revenue. 5. Having considered the rival contentions and on perusal of records, I find that statute did not have the definition of trading as service for the period before 1-4-2011. Therefore, the definition of trading as service was not applicable to the period upto 31-3-2011. The period covered in the said show cause notice is upto 31-3-2011, therefore the demand is not sustainable. As a result, Appeal No. E/54591/2014 is allowed and Appeal No. E/53649/2014 is dismissed." In view of above judgments it is settled that demand under Rule 6(3) in respect of trading activity for the period upto 31.03.2011 is not sustainable. 5.5 The demand of the same count under Rule 6(3) was also raised for the period 2012-13 onwards. During this period, we find that the appellant admittedly paid back an amount equal to Cenvat Credit in respect of input services used for trading activity which is incompliance with the scheme of Rule 6(3) of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be considered that the manufacturer had not taken the Modvat credit. 5.7 Hi-Line Pens Pvt. Ltd. V/s Commissioner reported in 2003 (158) ELT 168 (Tri. - Del) : In this case before the Appellate Tribunal, the appellant took Modvat credit on common inputs i.e. inputs which were common for exemption and dutiable pens, but did not keep separate accounts or pay 8% on the exempted pens or reverse credit. The appellant reversed the entire credit later on to give a quietus to the dispute, but the view of the Department was that reversal of credit was not done prior to clearance of pens in question and facility of reversal of credit could not be available to the appellant. However, the Appellate Tribunal has held in para 4 of the decision that the time of reversal was not material for reversal of credit taken in excess of what was due. The objection of the Department was overruled by the Appellate Tribunal. 5.8 Bharat Earth Movers Ltd. V/s Collector reported in 2001 (136) ELT 225 (Tri. - Bang.) : In this case before the Appellate Tribunal, the appellant assessee had not reversed the credit even when the case was heard by the Appellate Tribunal, but still however, the Appellate Tr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... services; but the legislature has not enacted the provision by which cenvat credit, which is other than the credit attributed to input services used in exempted goods or services can be recovered from the assessee. The CESTAT has also taken a view on the issue of delay in giving intimation about the option to be exercised by the assessee, and has held that delay in giving intimation was at the most a procedural lapse. 5.13 On the basis of the above, the legal position that emerges is that when an assessee reverses or pays back the amount of credit taken on the inputs/input services used in relation to the manufacture of particular final products or rendering services, such reversal or paying back of credit would result in a situation where the assessee was deemed to have not taken the credit at all. The further legal position that emerges from the above referred case law is that such reversal may be at the time of clearance of the goods from the factory, may be at a time subsequent to such removal of final products from the factory, or such reversal may also be after the Revenue initiated investigation and enquiries against the assessee in the matter. 5.14 In this view of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that the assessee in respect of this credit on Cement and Steel, have not disputed the demand on any legal ground. Therefore, the demand of Cenvat credit on Cement and Steel was confirmed. 5.19 We find that the appellant have strongly contested the issue on the ground of limitation. The appellant's submission is that since the Cement and Steel were used for construction of Showrooms and Showrooms were used for providing output service of Authorized Service Station on which Service Tax was paid, they had bonafide belief of eligibility to avail the Cenvat Credit on Cement and Steel. The appellant have strongly contested the demand on the ground of limitation as there is no suppression of fact and mala fide on the part of the appellant. In order to arrive at conclusion whether there is any mala fide intention on the part of the appellant, we analyse the legal position of the issue during the relevant period i.e. upto 31.03.2011, we find that during said period, the Cement and Steel used for construction of the premises of output service provider was clearly admissible in terms of definition of input under Rule 2(k) of Cenvat Credit Rules. The issue has been considered in the follo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt time. It was observed by the Tribunal that the Jurisdictional Officer had collected Service Tax paid by the assessee from the head office in respect of branch offices and therefore, demand was not sustainable. 5.22 In the present case also even though that said three premises were not registered but the service provided by the said premises was admittedly on payment of Service Tax. Therefore, the credit availed in respect of input/input services used in the said three premises is clearly admissible. 5.23 The appellant have strongly contested the demand raised in the show caused notice dated 23.10.2012 which was issued for the period 2007-2008 to 2010-2011 on the ground of limitation in respect of all the issues. On perusal of fact available on record we find that as regard the issue of demand on spare parts and lubricants the appellant have raised common invoice for service as well as for sale of spare and lubricants. The service tax was discharged on the service portion. The issue was also convered in favour of the appellant by various judgements as discussed above. As regard the demand on sales incentive received by the appellant from M/s Toyota Kirloskar Motor. We find ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....MEDABAD SAC 300016 [email protected] Repair Type Delivery Date/Sale Dealer Reference Document C11005018 CustomerInsurance Medum Reper 125/03/2011/AH01A :BPJ13-00500 23/00/2022 18:62 Mobile 90043680 Telephone 26937030 Fax (2376) Contact Phone: 0824000023 Involce Date and Time Mileage In/Ref. Dec. Date Millenge out/Involce Date SA Code Name : 01/04/2013 14:04 : 16231 kms 26/03/2013 16236 kms 01/04/2013 : 1201060 Mahar Pravinbhal Palel Reg. No. GJ1KHESGO MAIRY HAI Job Code/Part No. Job Description/Part Name. Qty. Labour/ Unit Price Discount % Amount Amount after Discount Tex Amount Der. T Amount with Taxi VAT Estimate No. BPE100654 Labour Charges 52159P99 REAR BUMPER-PAINTING 3,360.00 0.00 415.30 0.00 0.00 REAR BUMPER-REPLACE 252.00 0.00 31.15 0,00 0.00 68131X99 BACK DOOR GLASS-REPLACE 1,299.00 0.00 160.60 0.00 0.00 87910099 MIRROR ASSEMBLY RH (OUTER 75.00 0.00 0.27 0.00 0,00 REAR VIEW)-R&R 87910P99 MIRROR ASSEMBLY RHOUTER 501.00 0.00 01.92 0.00 0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Job Type C11005018 :CustomerInsurance External Color :SYMPHONY SILVER Repair Type VIN NO. MBJB2ZBT300007497 Delivery Date/Sale Dealer Reference Document Medum Repair :25/03/2011/AH01A Involce Date and Time Mileage In/Ref. Dec. Dele :GPJ13-00590 Mileage out/Involce Date SA Code +Name Engine No. : 2NR-V0C9250 23/06/2022 18:52 (2377) Contact Phone: 9024000023 : 01/04/2013 14:04 16231 kms 20/03/2013 16236 kms 01/04/2013 1201080 Matar Provinbhal Patel Job Code/Part No. Job Description/Part Name Qty. Labour/ Unit Price Discount Amount Tax Amount Amount % Amount after Discount Ser. Tax VAT with Tax Part Charges A-64801-00070 A-87010-00500 GLASS SUB-ASSY, BACK 1.853.00 0.00 0.00 277.95 0.00 MIRROR ASSY, OUTER 1 045.00 0.00 0.00 141.75 0.00 457-05090-01 CLIP 2 67.00 0.00 0.00 17.10 0.00 QC DONE TECH AKHTAR TATA AIG INS SUR MANISH PARIKH B) PLEASE TAKE SERVICE APPOINTMENT 2 DAYS IN ADVANCE ON 079-66041400 or Online From "TOYOTA CONNECT APPLICATION SERVICE Mahar Pravinbhal Pelel ( ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Jivraj Park Ahmedabad - 380051, for ascertaining payment of Value Added Tax (VAT) and service tax by this client during the period of F.Y. 2007-08 to F.Y. 2012-13 and during the period of FY 2014-15 to F.Y. 2017-18 (upto 30th June, 2017) in respect of their business activity of services of authorized service station at following location. Sr.No Delarship Name Infinium Toyota 2 Infinium Toyota Location SG Highway Naroda Himatnagar Gandhidham 3 Infinium Toyota 4 Infinium Toyota 5 Infinium Toyota 6 Infinium Toyota Vadodara Mehsana 7 Infinium Toyota Bopal AMEST WARI & CO AHMEDABAD ACCOUNTANTI 1.3 During our verification, we have checked and relied upon audited financials, Vat Assessment orders and Service Tax Returns and Service Tax Audit Reports CS Scan Cescit, Ramchandra House, Nr. Dinesh Hall, Income Tax Char Rasta, Ahmedabad-380 009, Gujarat CamScanne Tel: +91 79 2658 3052, +91 98242 76100 E-mail: [email protected] Document 4 Branch Office: 301, Videocon Arizona, Nr. Nav Gujarat College, Usmanpura to Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380 013, Gujarat Tel: +91 94290 68790, +91 94290 65250 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., Nr. Nav Gujarat College, Usmanpura to Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380 013, Gujarat Tel: +91 94290 68790, +91 94290 65250 E-mail: [email protected] CA Deora Maheshwari & Co. Chartered Accountants 3 Annexure I Summary Sheet (Annexure Of Tax Payment of VAT and Service Tax) INFINIUM MOTORS PVT LTD Spare Part Sr.No (1) And Year (2) Lubricant VAT Tax (4) Addnl Vat Tax (8) Service Тах Total Vat Paid (6) Sales (3) Paid (5) (7) Labour Payable & Education Cess 1 2007-2008 98328918 12648258 12648258 34124518 4177737 2 2008-2009 120874022 15455913 3002145 18458058 37979441 4637285 115313138 14952294 2882848 17835143 42460562 4686151 3 2009-2010 4 2010-2011 159222709 20795355 4021397 24816752 48296149 4989880 5 2011-2012 236436851 30279465 5910922 36190387 73127331 7464791 6 2012-2013 310256646 40673803 7892090 48565893 97732485 12088904 59547313 11586641 71133954 146669856 18128394 7 2014-2015 465073537 8 2015-2016 533140917 58428291 11317320 69745611 155614222 20937959 9|2016-2017 656508013 63047985 12252047 95300032 188576745 28134406 Apr To 10....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er (other than consignee) VIKRAMRAMKEWALRAMANI PANIT NO : ADCPK0514F Invoice No. INV130001306 Delivery Note Supplier's Ref MBJ11JV4007407664 Buyer's Order No. Dated 29-Jun-2013 Mode/Terms of Payment Other Reference(s) Dated Despatch Document No. Delivery Note Date Despatched through Terms of Delivery Destination No 234 Less Description of Goods Quantity Rate per Amount INNOVA 9,70,649.57 INNOVA 2.5G SUFFIX IY 12.50% 2.50 % Round Off CHASSIS NO MB/11JV4007407004 ENGINE NO 2KD U235880 Vat Payable 12.5% ADDITIONAL TAX 2.5% Amount Chargeable (in words) INR Eleven Lakh Sixteen Thousand Two Hundred Forty Seven Only 1,21,331.20 24,266.24 (-)0.01 Total 11,16,247.00 E&QE Remarks 113077051,ORD130000974,INV130001306.29-JUN-13, IMVJY 2KD U235880 MBJ11JV4007407664-0413, GJW113C1953 ICICI BANK LTD Declaration We declare that this invoice shows the actual price of the goods described and that all particulars are true and correct This is a Computer Generated Invoice for INFINIUM MOJORPVT TORS NL LID Document 9 GUNAJI MAROTRAO T....