No Service tax liability arise on loans and advances, if it is revealed in the audited balance sheet
PrintListen to this Article
No Service tax liability arise on loans and advances, if it is revealed in the audited balance sheet
We are sharing with you an important judgment of Hon’ble CESTAT, Mumbai, in the case of Reliance Infratel Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service tax, Mumbai – II [2015 (4) TMI 129 - CESTAT MUMBAI] on the following issue:
Issue:
Whether Service tax liability can be arise on loans and advances, if it is revealed in the audited balance sheet?
Facts & background:
Reliance Infratel Ltd. (“the Appellant” or “the Company”) is a subsidiary of Reliance Communications Limited (“RCM”) (collectively referred to as “parties”) providing taxable service falling under Business Support Services. The Company was formed when RCM demerged the business of Telecom infrastructures and Telecom operating services into different entities and the business of Telecom infrastructure was demerged into the Appellant. Rs. 283/- crore were given by RCM to the Appellant towards the expenditure incurred by RCM even before the Appellant came into existence by way of expenses towards the initial setting up and also by way of payments made to vendors for supply of materials. Further, since the Telecom towers require huge investments the Appellant borrowed Rs. 1210/- crore from RCM during June, 2007 and September, 2007 as interest-free loan which was repaid/ returned by December 31, 2007.
Investigation of the Appellant was initiated on November 26, 2007 by the officers of Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence (“DGCEI”) and it was alleged that the financial support given to Appellant by RCM in terms of the Master Service Agreement dated April 10, 2007 (“the Agreement”) was in the nature of advance for the taxable services rendered or to be rendered by the Appellant to RCM and is required to be set off against the bills that would be raised later by the Appellant on RCM.
Being aggrieved the Appellant preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal, Mumbai contending that the sum of Rs. 1, 493/- crores (“impugned amount”) received by the Appellant from RCM is a loan by way of Inter Corporate Deposits given to the Appellant.
Held:
The Hon’ble CESTAT, Mumbai held as under:
- The Agreement and the audited balance sheets of the parties does not lead to a conclusion that the impugned amount received by the Appellant was in nature of advances for the services to be rendered;
- Further, repayment of impugned amount is not afterthought as even prior to the investigations, on September 20, 2007 the Appellant had recorded and treated the amount as Inter Corporate Deposits in the half Yearly balance sheet;
- Audited Balance Sheet for the year ending March 31, 2008 of both the parties which are in the public domain show Rs. 1,210/- crore as a loan and not as consideration for any services rendered. Further, there is no dispute that the Appellant had repaid Rs. 1,210/- crore received from RCM during the same financial year;
- Amount of Rs. 283/- crore was given before the Appellant came into existence and the same was repaid during the same financial year, hence Rs. 283/- cannot be treated as a consideration received for the services to be rendered by the Appellant but it is a financial support given by RCM to the Appellant by way of loans. Further, both the parties being Public Limited Companies, have clearly indicated in their balance sheets that the amounts have been shown as received and loans repaid.
- Scrutiny of the balance sheets produced revealed that accounts of the parties do not indicate any co-relation in the repayment of the loan and receipt of the service charges by the Appellant.
- Invoices raised by the Appellant on RCM do not reflect adjustment of impugned amounts and the Appellant has discharged Service tax liability for the consideration received in respect of the invoices raised;
- In terms of Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994, only payment made towards services provided can be brought under the ambit of consideration received and not any other amount.
Hope the information will assist you in your Professional endeavors. In case of any query/ information, please do not hesitate to write back to us.
Thanks & Best Regards,
Bimal Jain
FCA, FCS, LLB, B.Com (Hons)
Delhi:
Flat No. 34B, Ground Floor, Pocket - 1,
Mayur Vihar, Phase - I,
Delhi – 110091, India
Desktel: +91-11-22757595/ 42427056
Mobile: +91 9810604563
Email: bimaljain@hotmail.com
Category : Service Tax | Comments : 0 | Hits : 627
CENVAT CREDIT ON SET TOP BOX INTRODUCTION Service providers have at least a Telephone in their office. They are paying service tax on the telephone charges. The service tax on telephone charges becomes a part of the cost for the service provider. When he collects service tax from the customer it becomes tax on tax which increases the actual rate of tax payment. This phenomenon of tax on tax is called the cascading effect. The government does not want this to happen. The...
NO KRISHI KALYAN CESS ON DEBTORS AS ON 13th MAY’ 2016 (PART -2) Read more at: http://www.casansaar.com/article-submit.htmlThe enabling provisions for KRISHI KALYAN CESS (KKC) are contained in Chapter – VI of Finance Act’ 2016. As per the provisions, KKC shall be applicable at 0.5% on all taxable services and the proceeds of KKC would be exclusively used for financing initiatives relating to improvement of agriculture and welfare of farmers. The Cess will come into force with ...
As you are aware that the Finance Act, 2016 has increased the service tax rate to include a new cess, namely Krishi Kalyan Cess, which is applicable w.e.f. 01/06/2016. The effective rate of service tax for all new services provided after 01/06/2016 shall be as below: Service Tax ...
CENVAT CREDIT AVAILABLE VS CENVAT CREDIT TAKEN ALARMING AMENDMENT IN RULE 6(3) OF CENVAT CREDIT RULES (a) A manufacturer who manufactures two classes of goods namely:- Non exempted goods removed Exempted goods removed Or (b) a provider of output service who provides two classes of services, namely:- Non Exempted Services Exempted Services Shall follow any one of the following options applicable to him namely:- (i) pay an amount equal to 6% ...
Date : 19.03.2016 M/s. ABC LLP ( Service Provider ) M/s. XYZ Limited ( Service Recipient ) Ref: Service Tax on Works Contract and RCM Opinion Before giving opinion on the issues it will be useful to refer the questions related with this transaction. Assume ABC is LLP and XYZ Ltd is Body Corporate. ABC LLP is a sub contractor of XYZ Limited. XYZ Ltd sub contracted Works Contract work as well as Labor work also some time. Both partie...
Comments