Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2019 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (2) TMI 26 - AT - Service TaxBusiness Auxiliary Services - assessee had received amount towards dealer commission - whether the amount received attains the character of consideration and also whether the activity falls under BAS? - Held that:- Though in the Show Cause Notice it is alleged that the activity would fall under Sub-Clause (i) of Section 65(19), the Original Authority has held that the appellant is acting as a Commission Agent. The definition of Commission Agent will show that Commission Agent is a person who acts on behalf of another and causes sale or purchase of goods - The appellant, in the present case, undisputedly, is not acting on behalf of the vehicle dealer for the purchase or sale of vehicles. Merely because vehicle is intended to be purchased from the dealer, the Bank would not disburse the loan. The Bank has to be satisfied with other conditions like executing hypothecation agreement, etc. The ultimate decision to give loan rests with the Bank. This being so, it is not a service provided to the dealer, and the Bank is never a Commission Agent of the dealer - It is clear that the assessee is neither acting on behalf of dealer nor providing any service to dealer. Therefore, the assessee definitely does not fit into the category of Commission Agent or under the definition of BAS. The discount received by the assessee cannot be considered as a consideration for service. The activity, if any, does not fall under the definition of BAS. Time limitation - Held that:- Since the issue on merits is found to be in favour of the assessee, it is not necessary to consider the issue on limitation. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|