TMI Blog2010 (4) TMI 570X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... D ASHOK JINDAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER D.N. Panda, Judicial Member - All the three cases came up before Larger Bench pursuant to the direction of the Hon ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in CEA No. 130 of 2008 in the case of CCE v. N.K. Chugh Co. Ltd. in Service Tax Appeal No. 1/2009 in the case of Unique Investment Centre v. CCE and in ST/Appeal No. 2/2009 in the case of CCE v. Vijay Sharma Co. A common order dated 22-2-2010 was passed by Hon ble High Court directing Tribunal for constitution of Larger Bench to decide the question involved in all the three cases. The question that was framed by Hon ble High Court for answer by the Larger Bench is as under : Whether services provided by sub-brokers are covered under the ambit of servi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n connection with sale or purchase of securities dealt in recognized stock exchange, is of similar nature as that is provided by a stock broker, there is no difference between the two and a sub-broker is brought to the ambit and scope of law for providing such service recognized as taxable service. If a sub-broker is registered under SEBI Rules and Regulations or makes application for such purpose under such Regulations, to provide the service of aforesaid nature, he qualifies to be service provider of taxable service under the category of stock broker . As per the statutory definition contained in section 65(101) of the Finance Act, 1994 which brings sub-broker into the scope of taxation, the claim of the present appellants that they are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ker who as such provides service to the clients. Therefore, sub-brokers and stock brokers are agent and principal. Therefore, no liability is fastened on the appellants in terms of the definition of stock broker . Asking the appellants to pay taxes shall amount to double taxation since the main stock broker had paid tax for the service provided. Revenue has not suffered any loss due to discharge of tax liability by the stock broker. There shall be no levy of tax on the present appellants. The sub-broker having been immune from taxation, these appellants cannot be discriminatory dealt. But he submitted that it is an established fact that the sub-brokers have paid tax to the broker and the stock broker has discharged his liability, ultimatel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded as defined by the Finance Act, 1994 aforesaid. 9. It is true that there is no provision in the Finance Act, 1994 for double taxation. The scheme of service tax law suggests that it is a single point tax law without being a multiple taxation legislation. In absence of any statutory provision to the contrary, providing of service being event of levy, self same service provided shall not be doubly taxable. If service tax is paid by a sub-broker in respect of same taxable service provided by the stock-broker, the stock broker is entitled to the credit of the tax so paid on such service only if entire chain of identity of sub-broker and stock broker is established and transactions are provided to be one and the same. In other words, if t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
