AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 570
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Ministry of Communications and IT, engaged in Data Processing Services to State Electricity Boards such as Punjab State Power Corporation, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, U.T Chandigarh. In terms of the Agreements, the appellant was engaged in printing the electricity bills for the electricity authorities at the rates agreed for at the rate of 9% over the expenses and service tax. Stationary was either supplied by the authorities or the expenses incurred for the same was reimbursed to the appellant; the Revenue issued a show cause notice dated 04.04.2012 covering the period 01.10.2006 to 31.12.2011 alleging that the expenses incurred for the stationary, reimbursed by the electricity authorities, should....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ursed stationary charges are not subject to service tax. She fairly submits that though the appellants have paid service tax under a mistaken notion, they are not agitating the issue on the taxability. As the tax itself was not payable, any addition to the same has no relevance. She relies on the following cases: • Intercontinental Consultants & Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India 2013 (29) S.T.R. 9 (Del.) [affirmed by Supreme Court in Union of India and Anr. vs. M/s. Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. 2018 (10) G.S.T.L. 401 (S.C.)]. • Commissioner of CGST, Delhi South vs. Boeing India Defense Pvt. Ltd., 2024 (388) E.L.T. 37 (S.C.) • Coca Cola India Inc vs. Commissioner of Serv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1 (Tri. -Mumbai) • Tamilnadu Electricity Board vs. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Final Order No. 40963/2023, dated 30.10.2023 -CESTAT Chennai • M/s S.K. Shah vs. CCE & ST, Kolhapur, Final Order No. A/88250/2018, dated 20.12.2018-CESTAT Mumbai • Commissioner of Service Tax v Bhayana Builders Pvt. Ltd. 2018(10) G.S.T.L 118 (SC) • Wipro Ge Medical Systems Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commr. Of S.T. Bangalore, 2009 (14) S.T.R. 43 (Tri.-Bang.) upheld by the Supreme Court in 2012 (28) S.T.R. J44 (S.C). • Safety Retreading Company (P) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem, M/s Tyresoles India Private Limited vs. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Goa and M/s Laxmi Tyres vs. Comm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es, 2006 brings within its sweep the expenses which are incurred while rendering the service and are reimbursed, that is, for which the service receiver has made the payments to the assessees. As per these Rules, these reimbursable expenses also form part of 'gross amount charged'. Therefore, the core issue is as to whether Section 67 of the Act permits the subordinate legislation to be enacted in the said manner, as done by Rule 5. As noted above, prior to April 19, 2006, i.e., in the absence of any such Rule, the valuation was to be done as per the provisions of Section 67 of the Act. 22. Section 66 of the Act is the charging Section which reads as under: "there shall be levy of tax (hereinafter referred to as the servic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at High Court was right in interpreting Sections 66 and 67 to say that in the valuation of taxable service, the value of taxable service shall be the gross amount charged by the service provider 'for such service' and the valuation of tax service cannot be anything more or less than the consideration paid as quid pro qua for rendering such a service. 25. This position did not change even in the amended Section 67 which was inserted on May 1, 2006. Sub-section (4) of Section 67 empowers the rule making authority to lay down the manner in which value of taxable service is to be determined. However, Section 67(4) is expressly made subject to the provisions of sub-section (1). Mandate of sub-section (1) of Section 67 is manifest, as no....