ST - Supreme Court agrees with Larger Bench CESTAT decision in Bhayana Builders - Revenue appeals dismissed
By TIOL News Service
NEW DELHI, FEB 20, 2018: In the case of Bhayana Builders & Ors , the question before the Larger Bench of the CESTAT was -
Whether the value of the material supplied by the recipient of the taxable service free of cost (hereinafter, for convenience referred to as "free supplies") should also be included, for availing the benefits under Notification No. 15/2004-ST, dated 10.09.2004 as amended by Notification No. 4/2005-ST dated 01.03.2005.?
The Larger Bench [2013-TIOL-1331-CESTAT-DEL-LB] in its order dated 6 September 2013 had held thus -
|
(a) The value of goods and materials supplied free of cost by a service recipient to the provider of the taxable construction service, being neither monetary or non-monetary consideration paid by or flowing from the service recipient, accruing to the benefit of service provider, would be outside the taxable value or the gross amount charged, within the meaning of the later expression in Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994; and
(b) Value of free supplies by service recipient do not comprise the gross amount charged under Notification No. 15/2004-ST, including the Explanation thereto as introduced by Notification No. 4/2005-ST.
|
Kindly also see DDT 2185.
Against this order the Revenue had filed appeals before the Supreme Court. Please see DDT 2527 dated 29.01.2015.
The Supreme Court decided the matter yesterday.
After extracting the provisions of section 67 of the FA, 1994 before and after the amendment on 18 April 2006, the apex court also adverted to the notifications 12/2003-ST, 15/2004-ST, 4/2005-ST and the Board Circulardated 17 September 2004 and inter alia observed -
++ It is clear that both prior and after amendment, the value on which service tax is payable has to satisfy the following ingredients:
a. Service tax is payable on the gross amount charged:- the words "gross amount" only refers to the entire contract value between the service provider and the service recipient. The word "gross" is only meant to indicate that it is the total amount charged without deduction of any expenses. Merely by use of the word "gross" the Department does not get any jurisdiction to go beyond the contract value to arrive at the value of taxable services. Further, by the use of the word "charged", it is clear that the same refers to the amount billed by the service provider to the service receiver. Therefore, in terms of Section 67, unless an amount is charged by the service provider to the service recipient, it does not enter into the equation for determining the value on which service tax is payable.
b. The amount charged should be for "for such service provided": Section 67 clearly indicates that the gross amount charged by the service provider has to be for the service provided. Therefore, it is not any amount charged which can become the basis of value on which service tax becomes payable but the amount charged has to be necessarily a consideration for the service provided which is taxable under the Act. By using the words "for such service provided" the Act has provided for a nexus between the amount charged and the service provided. Therefore, any amount charged which has no nexus with the taxable service and is not a consideration for the service provided does not become part of the value which is taxable under Section 67. The cost of free supply goods provided by the service recipient to the service provider is neither an amount "charged" by the service provider nor can it be regarded as a consideration for the service provided by the service provider. In fact, it has no nexus whatsoever with the taxable services for which value is sought to be determined.
The Supreme Court further observed -
++ A plain meaning of the expression ‘the gross amount charged by the service provider for such service provided or to be provided by him' would lead to the obvious conclusion that the value of goods/material that is provided by the service recipient free of charge is not to be included while arriving at the ‘gross amount' simply, because of the reason that no price is charged by the assessee/service provider from the service recipient in respect of such goods/materials.
++ This further gets strengthened from the words ‘for such service provided or to be provided' by the service provider/assessee. Again, obviously, in respect of the goods/materials supplied by the service recipient, no service is provided by the assessee/service provider.
++ Explanation 3 to subsection (1) of Section 67 removes any doubt by clarifying that the gross amount charged for the taxable service shall include the amount received towards the taxable service before, during or after provision of such service, implying thereby that where no amount is charged that has not to be included in respect of such materials/goods which are supplied by the service recipient, naturally, no amount is received by the service provider/assessee.
++ Though, sub-section (4) of Section 67 states that the value shall be determined in such manner as may be prescribed, however, it is subject to the provisions of sub-sections (1), (2) and (3). Moreover, no such manner is prescribed which includes the value of free goods/material supplied by the service recipient for determination of the gross value.
The counsel for the Revenue relied upon Explanation (c) to sub-section (4) to buttress their stand that payment received in ‘any form' and ‘any amount credited or debited, as the case may be...' is to be included for the purposes of arriving at gross amount charges and is leviable to pay service tax. Inasmuch as the value of goods/materials supplied free is a form of payment and, therefore, should be added.
|
(c) "gross amount charges" includes payment by cheque, credit card, deduction from account and any form of payment by issue of credit notes or debit notes and [book adjustment, and any amount credited or debited, as the case may be, to any account, whether called ‘suspense account' or by any other name, in the books of account of a person liable to pay service tax, where the transaction of taxable service is with any associated enterprise.]
|
To this submission, the Apex Court observed -
"...We fail to understand the logic behind the aforesaid argument. A plain reading of Explanation (c) which makes the ‘gross amount charges' inclusive of certain other payments would make it clear that the purpose is to include other modes of payments, in whatever form received; be it through cheque, credit card, deduction from account etc. It is in that hue, the provisions mentions that any form of payment by issue of credit notes or debit notes and book adjustment is also to be included. Therefore, the words ‘in any form of payment' are by means of issue of credit notes or debit notes and book adjustment. With the supply of free goods/materials by the service recipient, no case is made out that any credit notes or debit notes were issued or any book adjustments were made. Likewise, the words, ‘any amount credited or debited, as the case may be', to any account whether called ‘suspense account or by any other name, in the books of accounts of a person liable to pay service tax' would not include the value of the goods supplied free as no amount was credited or debited in any account…"
The Supreme Court added -
"...the definition of "gross amount charged" given in Explanation (c) to Section 67 only provides for the modes of the payment or book adjustments by which the consideration can be discharged by the service recipient to the service provider. It does not expand the meaning of the term "gross amount charged" to enable the Department to ignore the contract value or the amount actually charged by the service provider to the service recipient for the service rendered. The fact that it is an inclusive definition and may not be exhaustive also does not lead to the conclusion that the contract value can be ignored and the value of free supply goods can be added over and above the contract value to arrive at the value of taxable services. The value of taxable services cannot be dependent on the value of goods supplied free of cost by the service recipient . The service recipient can use any quality of goods and the value of such goods can vary significantly. Such a value, has no bearing on the value of services provided by the service recipient. Thus, on first principle itself, a value which is not part of the contract between the service provider and the service recipient has no relevance in the determination of the value of taxable services provided by the service provider."
The further submission of the counsel for the Revenue that in case the assessees did not want to include the value of goods/materials supplied free of cost by the service recipient, they were not entitled to the benefit of notification dated September 10, 2004 read with notification dated March 01, 2005, was also held to be an invalid argument for the reason -
"…Obviously, no amount is charged (and it could not be) by the service provider in respect of goods or materials which are supplied by the service recipient. It also makes it clear that valuation of gross amount has a causal connection with the amount that is charged by the service provider as that becomes the element of ‘taxable service'. Thirdly, even when the explanation was added vide notification dated March 01, 2005, it only explained that the gross amount charged shall include the value of goods and materials supplied or provided or used by the provider of construction service. Thus, though it took care of the value of goods and materials supplied by the service provider/assessee by including value of such goods and materials for the purpose of arriving at gross amount charged, it did not deal with any eventuality whereby value of goods and material supplied or provided by the service recipient were also to be included in arriving at gross amount ‘gross amount charged'."
Relyingon the decision in Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs, Kerala v. M/s. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. = 2015-TIOL-187-SC-ST, it was further viewed that the service tax is to be levied in respect of ‘taxable services' and for the purpose of arriving at 33% of the gross amount charged, unless value of some goods/materials is specifically included by the Legislature, that cannot be added.
The Supreme Court also emphasised -
++ As per Section 93, the Central Government is empowered to grant exemption from the levy of service tax either wholly or partially, which is leviable on any ‘taxable service' defined in any of sub-clauses of clause (105) of Section 65. Thus, exemption under Section 93 can only be granted in respect of those activities which the Parliament is competent to levy service tax and covered by sub-clause (zzq) of clause (105) and sub-clause (zzzh) of clause (105) of Section 65 of Chapter V of the Act under which such notifications were issued.
Concluding that the Bench is in agreement with the view taken by the Full Bench of CESTAT in the impugned judgment dated September 6, 2013, all the Revenue appeals were dismissed.
