Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2025 (6) TMI 1970

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... service tax category of renting of immovably property, maintenance and repair service etc. As per the balance sheet maintained by the appellants, it was observed that they have received an amount of Rs.5,27,06,600/- for the period from 2005-2006 towards rent facility and salary of the employees. Since the amount was not subject to payment of service tax, the appellants were directed to produce the details of said expenditure. In response to said query, the appellant submitted that it was towards the salary and wages paid during the disputed period. Thus, considering the said amount was towards rent and manpower recruitment or supply agency service, service tax was demanded and show- cause notice was issued on 19.10.2010. Thereafter, the ad....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the joint venture business commenced only from 15.12.2005. 3. The learned counsel also drew our attention to the reimbursable expenses which clearly shows that it was towards the expenses such as salary. The learned counsel also drew our attention to the letter dated 27.12.2010 where the SBPL has issued a certificate along with Chartered Accountant certificate specifying that the said amount was towards reimbursement of expenses. The learned counsel further submits that issue regarding tax liability on reimbursable expenses is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India vs. M/s. Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt. Ltd.: 2018 (10) GSTL 401 (SC) and Kou Chan Knowledge Converge....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rein it is held that: "7.1 The difference between the contesting parties appears to be in the field of semantics as much as from the provisions of law. Revenue refers to the payments made by the group companies to the respondent as 'consideration', while the respondent labels the same payment as a 'reimbursement'. Since the term 'consideration' has been defined in section 67, the discussion will have to be confined to understanding the term from the said description. No import of definition from any other statute or legal reference is possible. The factual position can be ascertained only by examining the nature of payment. The fact is that the group company's pay the respondent for the use of staff prov....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....om June 2005 and as per Article 1 of the Agreement, the asset of the seller in respect of the specified business shows employees and all personal records (including without limitation all personnel human resources and other records and each employees' current position and base annual compensation) of the seller relating to the employees. Thus, as per this condition of the Agreement, it is complete contract for sale of the property for new venture and said contract cannot be vivisected to different categories to find out the service tax element on each activity. The appellant had taken a specific contention that the consideration is towards reimbursement of salary for the delay in commencement of joint venture and the same cannot be consider....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....plain meaning which is to be attached to Section 67 (unamended, i.e., prior to May 1, 2006) or after its amendment, with effect from, May 1, 2006. Once this interpretation is to be given to Section 67, it hardly needs to be emphasised that Rule 5 of the Rules went much beyond the mandate of Section 67. We, therefore, find that 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." 8. As regarding invoking extended period of limitation, we find str....