Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2018 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (7) TMI 1439 - AT - Service TaxBusiness Auxiliary Services or not - amounts received as commission from various agencies for the sale of mutual funds - collection of telephone bills for BSNL - receipt and remittance of money from abroad as an agent of Western Union - sale of Government of India bonds - period July 2003 to June 2006 - demand of service tax under the head Business Auxiliary Services. Commission on sale of mutual funds - period involved is July 2003 to 09.07.2004 - Held that:- Identical issue came up before the Tribunal in the case of P.N. Vijay Financial services (P) Ltd. [2008 (9) TMI 72 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] wherein the Bench held that sale and purchase of mutual funds is covered under notification No. 13/2003-ST and hence any commission received for such activity, no tax is payable - demand set aside. Commission received on collection of telephone bills - period involved is July 2003 to 09.09.2004 - Held that:- Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Federal Bank Limited [2016 (3) TMI 354 - SUPREME COURT] has categorically held that services provided by banks for collection of telephone bills, insurance premium on behalf of the client companies have to be considered as cash management service and cannot be considered under the category of business auxiliary services - demand set aside. Amount of commission received on money transfer - period from July 2003 to 09.09.2004 - Held that:- The ratio of Apex Court in the case of Federal Bank Limited [2016 (3) TMI 354 - SUPREME COURT] would squarely cover the issues in favor of the respondent, where it was held that when cash management services stood excluded from the purview of service tax at the hands of the Bank until 31.05.2007, the authorities cannot levy service tax on an activity which is essentially cash management service, by taking aid of other general charging heads, such as business auxiliary service - demand set aside. Commission received on sale of Government of India bonds - period involved is from July 2003 to June 2006 - Held that:- Identical issue came up before the Tribunal in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd [2014 (1) TMI 1611 - CESTAT MUMBAI] wherein the Tribunal held that sale of RBI bonds and receipt of brokerage being the transaction of government securities, there is no service tax liability - demand set aside. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
|