Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2019 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (1) TMI 1308 - AT - Service TaxValuation - Broadcasting Service - inclusion of amount received by the appellant and subsequently disbursed to the dealers in assessable value - Rule 5 of Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006 - Held that:- Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs Intercontinental Consultants & Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. [2018 (3) TMI 357 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] has held 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 - the demand of ₹ 24,57,55,162/- along with interest and equal penalty is set aside. Security Deposit collected from distributors - Held that:- As per the terms and conditions entered into between the subscriber and the appellant through subscriber’s application form, the appellant is bound to refund security deposit of ₹ 400/- per viewing card if it is claimed within 15 days from the end of the service and if it is returned in functional condition. We also find that said amount is treated as security deposit in the books of account of the appellant. The learned Commissioner has held that there was no evidence of return of any security deposit and hence service tax was payable - Revenue should have investigated as to whether any subscriber had returned the viewing card within 15 days of end of the service and whether the appellant have refused to return the deposit. We do not find any such investigation carried out by revenue. Therefore, the presumption of revenue that there was no evidence of return of any security deposit was not sufficient ground to conclude that the said amount of deposit was liable to be subjected to service tax - thus, without investigation as to whether appellant has refused to refund security deposit to any person who has terminated services, it cannot be presumed that the said amount collected as security deposit, should be treated as consideration - demand set aside. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|