Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be discontinued on 31-07-2025
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please
let us know via our feedback form
so we can address them promptly.
Home
2019 (1) TMI 513 - AT - Service TaxValuation - Business Auxiliary services - inclusion of amounts paid to the appellant by the other party to the contract in assessable value - Held that - Hon ble Supreme Court in re Intercontinental Consultants & Technocrats Pvt Ltd 2018 (3) TMI 357 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA after examining the provisions of Service Tax (Determination of Value of Taxable Services) Rules 2006 and section 67 of Finance Act 1994 as amended from time to time it has been held that till the incorporation of the explanation in section 67 of Finance Act 1994 with effect from 14th May 2015 sub-rule (1) of rule 5 of Rules supra inserted with effect from 1st June 2007 is ultra vires of the Act. Consequently the legislative intent to tax was held to be limited to the consideration for the service and the test of leviability for the taxable service would have to be overcome for bearing fruit. The obvious conclusion therefore is that the consideration agreed upon as recompense for a particular service is taxable. Any other receipt has to be evidenced as additional consideration for the said service to be subject to tax - the demand of tax under the head of business auxiliary service should be restricted to such amount as was being discharged by the appellant on the contracted amount. Manpower recruitment or supply service - pure agent services - section 67 Finance Act 1994 - Held that - Absence of consideration is not the same as unascertainable consideration and the Rules cannot be invoked in the present instance. Hence except in circumstances of allegation supported by evidence of non-monetary consideration having been received for inclusion of money value such consideration addition of any amount to the contracted price does not have the authority of law. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|