2025 (7) TMI 641 - AT - Service Tax

Classification of service - services rendered by the appellant to their clients during the period from 2005-06 to 2007-08 - Management Consultant Service or Commercial Training or Coaching Service - HELD THAT - Rendering advice consultancy or technical assistance in relation to hardware engineering is taxable whereas rendering advice consultancy or technical assistance in relation to software is non-taxable. In the order-in-original it was stated that the assessee had provided technical assistance in the form of designing software programs using Java etc. for various business activities and for management of organization of their clients. The above circular clarifies the position with regard to the consultancy provided in the present case on computer software related projects which include design programming execution and testing of various software programs for the management and business of an organization . Thus it is accepted by the Department that the appellant is rendering technical assistance in relation to software. Accordingly the services rendered by the appellant are Information Technology Software Services and so clearly non-taxable during the disputed period. On perusal of the activity and services rendered by the Appellant and on careful examination of the definition of Information Technology brought into tax w.e.f. from 16.05.2008 along with the definition of Management Consultancy Service the services rendered by the Appellant are more appropriately classifiable under IT services and so no levy of the tax existed then. The demand of service tax of Rs.3, 89, 081/- under Management Consultancy Services during the period from 2005-06 to 2007-08 cannot be sustained and so ordered to be set aside. Further demand of service tax of Rs.71, 849/- for the above period under Commercial Coaching and Training Services is also set aside as the consideration received on this taxable service would be below the threshold. Appeal allowed.

Summary

The core legal questions considered in this appeal are:

1. Whether the services rendered by the appellant during the period 2005-06 to 2007-08 fall under the category of "Information Technology Software Services" or "Management Consultancy Services" for the purpose of levy of service tax.

2. Whether the appellant is liable to pay service tax under Management Consultancy Service for the disputed period, despite the introduction of a separate category for Information Technology Services only from 16.05.2008.

3. Whether the appellant is liable to pay service tax under Commercial Training or Coaching Services during the disputed period, considering the threshold exemption limit.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis

Issue 1: Classification of Services Rendered by the Appellant (Information Technology Services vs. Management Consultancy Services)

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Finance Act, 1994 defines "Management Consultancy Service" under Section 65(105)(r) as any service rendered in connection with the management of any organization or business, including advice, consultancy, or technical assistance in various management areas. The definition evolved over time, with amendments effective from 1.5.2006 and 1.6.2007 expanding the scope to include management of information technology resources.

"Information Technology Software" is defined under Section 65(53a) as any representation of instructions, data, sound, or image recorded in machine-readable form, capable of manipulation or interactivity by computer or data processing machines. Section 65(105)(zzzze) defines taxable services related to IT software, including development, design, programming, adaptation, upgradation, and consultancy related to IT software.

Board's letter F.No.334/1/2008-TRU dated 29.02.2008 clarified that IT services and IT enabled services were leviable under various taxable services, including Consulting Engineer Service (hardware engineering), Management or Business Consultant's Service (procurement and management of IT resources), and others. It specifically noted that advice, consultancy, or technical assistance related to software was non-taxable under these categories.

Precedents cited by the appellant include the Tribunal's observation in IBM India Pvt Ltd Vs CST [2010 (23) STT 338 Bangalore], which held that where a particular service was excluded from the scope of taxable service, it could not be taxed under any other category. The appellant also relied on Basti Sugar Mills Company Limited [2007 (7) STR 431] to argue that management consultancy covers advisory services, not actual performance of management functions such as software development.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court examined the nature of services rendered by the appellant, which involved designing, developing, and maintaining software solutions using technologies like Java, C++, .NET, and MySQL for clients in various industries such as healthcare, telecommunications, and logistics. The appellant's activities included software product development, preparation of Software Requirement Specification documents, database design, and software lifecycle automation.

The Court noted that the impugned order and lower authorities relied on the definition of Management Consultancy and Board's letter to classify these activities as taxable under Management Consultancy Service. However, the Court found that the impugned order failed to establish a causal link between the statutory definition and the appellant's actual services. The appellant was not providing advice, consultancy, or technical assistance relating to procurement or management of IT resources but was engaged in core software development activities.

The Court emphasized the distinction between IT services and management consultancy. Utilizing IT in business management cannot be equated with providing IT services. The appellant's work was primarily the design and development of software, which falls squarely within the definition of Information Technology Software Services.

Further, the Court observed that the Department attempted to fit the appellant's activities into Consulting Engineer Service, which relates to hardware engineering, but this was not justified given the software-centric nature of the appellant's services.

The Court also referred to the Board's letter clarifying that advice or technical assistance related to software was not taxable under management consultancy or consulting engineer services during the relevant period.

Key Evidence and Findings: The appellant's invoices, purchase orders, and project descriptions demonstrated software development activities, including prototyping, GUI design, programming, and documentation. The Department's own acknowledgment in the original order that the appellant provided technical assistance in software design and programming supported the appellant's claim.

Application of Law to Facts: Given the statutory definitions and Board's clarifications, the Court concluded that the appellant's services were more appropriately classifiable as Information Technology Software Services, which were not taxable prior to 16.05.2008. Therefore, the demand of service tax under Management Consultancy Service for the disputed period was unsustainable.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Department argued that the appellant's services related to management consultancy because they involved software used for management functions and that the Board's letter confirmed IT services were taxable under management consultancy before 16.05.2008. The Court rejected this, holding that the mere use of software for management does not convert software development services into management consultancy. The appellant's reliance on precedents and statutory definitions was accepted.

Conclusion: The services rendered by the appellant during 2005-06 to 2007-08 are classified as Information Technology Software Services and are not taxable under Management Consultancy Service during the disputed period.

Issue 2: Liability for Service Tax Under Commercial Training or Coaching Services

Relevant Legal Framework: The appellant was also demanded service tax under Commercial Training or Coaching Services for the disputed period. The threshold exemption limit for such services was Rs. 4 lakhs during 2005-06.

Court's Reasoning and Findings: The appellant contended that the consideration received for commercial coaching or training services was below the threshold exemption limit. The lower authorities did not establish that the threshold was crossed.

Conclusion: The demand of service tax under Commercial Training or Coaching Services was not sustainable and was set aside.

Significant Holdings

"The impugned order relies on (a) the definition of 'Management Consultant' in the Finance Act, 1994 during the relevant period; and (b) the clarification in Board's letter D.O. F. No.334/1/2008-TRU dated 29.02.2008. However, it fails to establish the causal link between the said definition and the service rendered by the appellant."

"The distinction in designing and development of software programmes vis-`a-vis management of business and organization has to be understood. Utilization of IT in management or business organization cannot be confused with or equated with the provision of IT services."

"It is accepted by the Department that the appellant is rendering technical assistance in relation to software. Accordingly, the services rendered by the appellant are 'Information Technology Software Services' and so clearly non-taxable during the disputed period."

"Where a particular service was excluded from the scope of taxable service, it would not be levied to tax under any other category."

"The demand of service tax of Rs.3,89,081/- under Management Consultancy Services during the period from 2005-06 to 2007-08 cannot be sustained and so ordered to be set aside. Further demand of service tax of Rs.71,849/- for the above period under Commercial Coaching and Training Services is also set aside as the consideration received on this taxable service would be below the threshold."

The Court ultimately modified the impugned order by setting aside the service tax demands under Management Consultancy Services and Commercial Coaching & Training Services for the disputed period, allowing the appeal with consequential relief as per law.