News Update

DRI canon - Sleuths in SnagACC appoints two new Members for CBICJharkhand Assembly polls – voting underway for 43 seatsIndia-Russia discuss cooperation in Pulses tradeMHA tells House Panel that only 38 civilians lost their lives in North-East in 2023; skips mention of ManipurBoost for Make in India - Integrated Manufacturing Cluster coming up at GayaBangladesh seeks help for Interpol for arresting ousted PM HasinaNFRA recomments revising SCQ1, SQM1 & SQM2 standardsElon Musk, Vivek Ramaswamy to run new Department of Government Efficiency in USAPFRDA invites bid for System Integrator for PFRDA Connect websiteTaliban appoints Ikramuddin Kamil as Acting Consul at MumbaiWith 11% growth, PSBs perform well in 1st half of FY 2024-25CBIC notifies Customs Tariff rates for Gold, Silver and crude oilCBDT notifies PNG Regulatory Board under Section 10(46A)(a) of I-T ActCBIC notifies ICD at Jajpur, OdishaI-T - Non-addition of any income on account of same being interest commensurate with TDS deposits, or making further enquiries would not confer PCIT with jurisdiction to pass an order u/s 263 : HCI-T - If there is settlement arrived at between members of Hindu undivided family, then cost with reference to acquisition of property would have to be assessed as per Sec 49(1)(i): HCI-T - Joint venture undertaking which was awarded a contract for full-fledged development of Airport, can be said to be 'developer' eligible for deduction u/s 80-IA(4): HCI-T - If tax is deductible at source, then assessee shall not be called upon to pay tax himself to extent to which tax has been deducted from that income: HCI-T - Revenue authorities are not justified in continuing retention of books of accounts and other documents contrary to provision of Sec 132(8): HCI-T- Power of revision is unwarrantedly exercised where it is based on incorrect assumption of facts: ITATST - Software imported and sold by the Appellant is import and sale of goods and is not exigible to service tax: CESTATST - Once Appellant had paid VAT on the sale of goods, service tax cannot be demanded on such sale of goods: CESTATST - Burden of proving that assessee suppressed facts with intent to evade payment of Service Tax is clearly upon the Department; is necessary for the Department to illustrate any positive act of suppression on assessee's part: CESTATCus - Where imported motor vehicle is registered & certified for compliance with Central Motor Vehicle Rules , then separate EC Type Approval Certificate under Import Licensing Note to Chapter 87 of Customs Tariff Act 1985, is not needed: CESTATCus - Substantial benefit of tax exemption cannot be denied based on procedural lapse alone; confiscation of imported vehicle is not tenable where no mis-declaration of description or classification or quantity, is involved: CESTAT
 
Rule 5(a) of POT Rules vis-a-vis new services taxable from 1-10-2014

SEPTEMBER 27, 2014

 

By S Sivakumar, LL.B., FCA, FCS, ACSI, MBA, Adv.

In terms of changes made to Section 66D of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Notification No. 18/2014-S.T dated August 25, 2014, certain new services which were exempt, will come into the service tax net from 1-10-2014. Thus, space of space for advertisement other than in print media and services provided by radio taxis would be taxable from 1-10-2014. The pertinent question that arises is the point of taxation for these services rendered during the period prior to 1-10-2014.

It is relevant to refer to Rule 5 of the Point of Taxation Rules, 2011, one of the most mischievous rules that one comes across in the service tax law. This rule reads as under:

5. Payment of tax in case of new services.-

Where a service is taxed for the first time, then,-

(a) no tax shall be payable to the extent the invoice has been issued and the payment received against such invoice before such service became taxable;

(b) no tax shall be payable if the payment has been received before the service becomes taxable and invoice has been issued within fourteen days of the date when the service is taxed for the first time.

This amended Rule 5 which has come into effect from 1-4-2012 vide Notification No.4/2012-ST dated 17-3-2012 is bound to create big time confusion vis-à-vis the point of taxation in respect of the new services coming into the tax net with effect from 1-10-2014.

Consider these….

1.  In terms of Sub-Rule (a) of Rule 5 reproduced above, service tax, in respect of a new service would have to be levied unless both the invoice and the payment against such invoice have been received by the service provider before the date such new service has come into effect.

This rule goes against the very foundation of the service tax law, which is now based on accrual basis as contrasted to the old law that existed before 01-04-2012 under which, the service provider was liable to pay service tax on the cash basis, i.e. on the basis of receipts. It is amazing that during the time that the Board came out with this notification 4/2012-ST dated 17th March, 2012, the service tax law fastening tax liability on accrual basis had already come into effect. This makes one wonder as to the kind of confusion that prevails at the level of the Board.

Be that as it may……taking the example of the new services coming into effect from 1-10-2014 (eg. Sale of space for advertisement in non-print media), as per this Rule, the service provider would be liable to pay service tax in respect of invoices raised before 1-10-2014 and remaining uncollected as on 1-10-2014. It seems clear that Rule 5(a) of the POT Rules is ultra vires Section 66B of the Finance Act, 1994, inasmuch as, service tax liability under Section 66B can be levied only on 'services provided or to be provided or agreed to be provided'. This Rule would travel beyond the charging section by fastening the tax liability on the service provider even though he has not rendered any services after the date of introduction of tax on the new services.

Moreover, the concept involving levy of tax and the concept involving collection of tax are two entirely different concepts.  The pre-requisite for collection of tax is the levy of tax. TIOL readers would be familiar with the landmark decision of the Apex Court in Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad Vs. Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. - 2002-TIOL-215-SC-CX-LB rendered in 1996, wherein it was held as under, in para 5:

"Once the levy is not there at the time when the goods are manufactured or produced in India, it cannot be levied at the stage of removal of the said goods. The idea of collection at the stage of removal is devised for the sake of convenience. It is not as if the levy is at the stage of removal; it is only the collection that is done at the stage of removal. Section 3(1) of the Central Excise Act says: "(1) There shall be levied and collected in such manner as may be prescribed duties of excise on all excisable goods other than salt which are produced or manufactured in India…."

The Apex Court further held as under, in Para 11, of this decision:

"The removal of goods is not the taxable event. Taxable event is the manufacture or production of goods"

If one applies the ratio of this decision to the service tax law, it is clear that, when there was no levy on the date of rendering of the service, service tax liability cannot be fastened on the service provider on the basis of the date of receipt of payment.

Moreover, the Apex Court, in its decision rendered on October 26, 2010, in Association of Leasing and Financial Service Companies v. Union of India - 2010-TIOL-87-SC-ST-LB has categorically held in Paras 18, 19 and 37 that, the taxable event, in respect of levy of service tax, is the "rendition of services". So, even on the basis of this binding decision, Rule 5 (a) would fall flat.

Before concluding…..

There is no issue in so far as Rule 5(b) of the POT Rules is concerned.

Nobody bothered about this Rule….  Now that, this is the first time new services are being subjected to the levy since this Rule came into the statute book, this Rule could see a judicial challenge in the days to come, for sure. Unfortunately, since this is the only direct rule that is applicable for new services, none of the other rules can be of help to the service providers.

CBEC would be well advised to issue a clarification on Rule 5(a), as otherwise, there is bound to be harassment to service providers, vis-à-vis the new taxable services coming into the tax net from 1-10-2014.

(DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are strictly of the author and Taxindiaonline.com doesn't necessarily subscribe to the same. Taxindiaonline.com Pvt. Ltd. is not responsible or liable for any loss or damage caused to anyone due to any interpretation, error, omission in the articles being hosted on the sites)

 RECENT DISCUSSION(S) POST YOUR COMMENTS
   
 
Sub: Point to be Considered

What you have mentioned in the article is truly correct and it is a practical problem that is being faced. However, in a specific case of Sale of Space, it can be argued that rule 5 does not apply as rule 5 deals with only those services that are taxed for the first time. It is important to note that sale of space has been brought under tax net for the first time by an amendment made in the advertisement agency services in Finance Act, 2006. This is the second time it is again coming under tax net, therefore rule 5 does not apply in the given case and instead rule 3 applies.

Posted by Ravi Kumar Somani
 

TIOL Tube Latest

Conferment of TIOL Awards 2024. The event was held on October 1, 2024 at Taj Palace, New Delhi



Technical Session I - Ease of Doing Business: GST on Digital Economy