Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2024 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (3) TMI 15 - AT - Service TaxLevy of service tax - Stock Broker’s Services - Banking & Other Financial Services - transaction charges - delayed payment charges - Extended period of limitation - interest - penalty. Transaction charges - HELD THAT:- The transaction charges collected by the appellant are not in relation to the provision of taxable service but the same are collected from the clients and are remitted to the stock exchange. Therefore, applying the principle that any receipt other than brokerage or commission is not exigible to service tax under the category of stock broker service, the appellant cannot be saddled with the liability of service tax on the transaction charges. Delayed payment charges (DPC) - HELD THAT:- The appellant had made payments to Stock Exchanges on behalf of their clients who delayed the payments against their transactions of securities and the appellant charged the DPC from the said clients by making debit entries in their ledgers which cannot be termed as consideration for the service rendered - The learned Counsel for the appellant has also referred to a recent decision of the Mumbai Bench in M/S IIFL HOLDING LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CGST & CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI CENTRAL (VICE-VERSA) [2024 (2) TMI 967 - CESTAT MUMBAI] wherein after quoting the observations in M/S RELIGARE SECURITIES LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, DELHI [2014 (4) TMI 588 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], the demand on the assessee in respect of delayed payment of charges paid by the clients for the actual delay, if any, in payment for the purchase of shares or other stocks was set aside as it in no way, can be considered as service of tolerating or refraining from an act, or to tolerate an act or a situation, or to do an act - demand set aside. Extended period of limitation - interest - penalty - HELD THAT:- As the issue decided on merits in favour of the appellant, the other consequential issues of extended period of limitation, interest and penalty does not require any consideration although the same is covered by the observations made by the Tribunal in LSE SECURITIES LTD. VERSUS CCE [2012 (6) TMI 364 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] that there persisted several confusion between the revenue and the appellants in respect to determination of accessible value of taxable service provided by the stock brokers and therefore there was a bona fide belief that there was no levy on receipts other than commission or brokerage received by the stock broker and consequently, no suppression of material facts can be attributed on the appellant with intent to evade payment of duty. Thus, no demand of service tax both can be raised on the appellant on account of transaction charges and delayed payment charges - the impugned order set aside - appeal allowed.
|