Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2024 (4) TMI 787

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tform, appellant collected convenience fee and paid service tax on the same. As per the record, appellant has not retained any amount to itself which was received from card companies and which was intended to be paid to cinema houses. The allegation in the proceedings are that the appellant had provided business support service to card companies. It was admitted in the show cause notice that the appellant was not raising any invoice to the card companies. It is very simple in the accounting standards that unless invoice is raised consideration is not collected. Therefore, it is very clear from the record that the appellant was not receiving any consideration from card companies. By relying on the ruling by Hon ble Supreme Court in the case .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... pays service tax on the said convenience fee. Appellant receives amount towards ticket cost along with convenience fee and remits the ticket cost to the cinema house or event holder as the case may be. It was observed by Revenue that the appellant was offering their online ticket platform to several credit card companies who promote their cards by allowing discounts or free tickets to the customers. When such discounts and free tickets are offered by credit card companies, the difference between the cost of the ticket and the amount collected from the customer against tickets is borne by the card companies. For the purpose of allowing the card companies to extend offers of discount and free tickets, appellant has entered into agreements wi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e being availed as offers by customers and it was stated that the appellant has paid the amounts to the cinema houses and did not retain any amount to itself that was paid by card companies. It was stated that since the consideration was nil, the service tax on the said consideration would also be nil. The said argument was not appreciated by Revenue. Through the impugned order, the service tax demand of Rs.6,33,96,482/- was confirmed and equal penalty was imposed. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant is before this Tribunal. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that Revenue has alleged that the appellant was providing business support service to the card companies who were provid .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hat the card companies would reimburse the appellant all amounts that were being availed as offers by the customers. He has further submitted that it was reflected from the books of account of the appellant that all the amounts that were collected from card companies were paid to the cinema houses and there was no consideration received by the appellant for helping the card companies to promote their business. He has submitted that if there is no consideration, then service is not provided. He has relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of CCE vs. Edelweiss Financial Services Ltd. reported at (2023) 5 Centax 57 (Tri.-Bom) affirmed by Hon ble Supreme Court through its order reported at 2023 (73) GSTL 4 (SC). He has submitted that .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d any amount to itself which was received from card companies and which was intended to be paid to cinema houses. The allegation in the proceedings are that the appellant had provided business support service to card companies. It was admitted in the show cause notice that the appellant was not raising any invoice to the card companies. It is very simple in the accounting standards that unless invoice is raised consideration is not collected. Therefore, it is very clear from the record that the appellant was not receiving any consideration from card companies. 5. In view of the above, by relying on the ruling by Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE vs. Edelweiss Financial Services Ltd. reported at 2023 (73) GSTL 4 (SC), we hold that the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates