TMI Blog2013 (3) TMI 449X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have to be restricted, prima facie, to the sum of ₹ 14.22 crores and not to the figure of ₹ 37.55 crores which has been taken by the revenue. This is so because we do not find any material which would indicate that the petitioner received anything in excess of ₹ 14.22 crores by way of reimbursement from its clients. The figure of ₹ 37.55 crores includes the direct expenditure incurred by the petitioner for which no reimbursement was claimed nor given. The petitioner has been able to make out a very good prima facie case that no additional tax is payable by it in respect of the service rendered by it. - However, since the petitioner has already paid a sum of ₹ 40 lacs, following the directions of the Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave added a figure of approximately ₹ 37.55 crores and have levied service tax on that amount to the extent of ₹ 3.57 crores. It is the case of the petitioner that the figure of ₹ 37.55 crores is ex facie wrong inasmuch as the petitioner has only received a sum of ₹ 14.22 crores by way of reimbursement for expenses incurred by it. It is, if at all, only the sum of ₹ 14.22 crores which could be the subject matter of taxation. If the approximate average rate of tax is taken to be 10%, then the entire tax liability, if at all, would be only to the extent of ₹ 1.4 crores. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, even if the stand of the revenue is accepted that the reimbursed expenditur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore, on that basis the demand of ₹ 3.57 crores has been worked out. As against that, the Tribunal has already granted substantial relief by restricting the pre-deposit amount to ₹ 1 crore and has also granted thepetitioner the benefit of instalments. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the respondents, the petitioner has been adequately protected and substantial relief has been given to the petitioner and this Court ought not to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. 6. Having examined the matter at some length, we find that, prima facie, the issue of levying and charging service tax on reimbursable expenditure has been settled by the decision of this Court in Intercontinental Consultants Te ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gh the actual amount received as reimbursement was approximately Rs.. 14.22 crores). The balance figure of approximately ₹ 10 crores was stated to be contra entries . These contra entries, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, merely inflated the figure of receipts, but in reality, the actual receipts did not increase by ₹ 10 crores inasmuch as there were contra entries indicating direct costs of the same amount of ₹ 10 crores. 8. Thus, if the figure of ₹ 37.55 crores, which has been taken by the revenue, is added to the figure of ₹ 33.00 crores, which has been billed and received by the petitioner for professional services, the resulting amount would be approximately ₹ 70 crores. This ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
