Supreme Court: Uncrystallized Contractual Damages Not an Operational Debt under Section 9 IBC  ||  Supreme Court: Interest Accrued in Suspense Account After NPA Classification is Recoverable as Debt  ||  Supreme Court: S.69 GST Arrest Order with “Reasons to Believe” Must Precede Arrest  ||  Supreme Court: Winding-Up Proceedings Period Cannot be Excluded under Section 14 Limitation Act  ||  Supreme Court: Separate Appeals Unnecessary Against Common Judgment on Suit and Counterclaim  ||  Supreme Court: Unsuccessful Party Can Seek Post-Award Section 9 Relief in Exceptional Cases  ||  Delhi HC Rejects Black Money Act Challenge, Imposes Rs. 60,000 Costs over Prosecution Avoidance  ||  Delhi HC Affirms Teacher's POCSO Conviction, Urges Schools to Encourage Children to Speak Up  ||  Kerala HC: NGO Funding Peaceful Protests Can't Justify FCRA Renewal Denial  ||  Delhi HC: Courts Cannot Judge Sufficiency of Material For Issuing Look Out Circular    

J J Patel and Brothers vs. CCE And ST, Surat-I - (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal) (11 Apr 2022)

Electricity charges reimbursed to the service provider by the service recipient not includible in gross value of service

MANU/CS/0083/2022

Service Tax

In present case, an enquiry was conducted against the Appellant and on verification of documents, department noticed that, assessee are providing 'Business Auxiliary Service" to Gujarat Gas Co. Ltd. in the form of infrastructural Support by way of providing land, building & equipment's, manpower, electricity connection and selling and billing of CNG gas, collection of bills etc.

On further verification of Bank Statement & ST-3 returns, it was noticed that there was huge difference in taxable value shown in ST-3 returns and amount of service charge received in Bank account. The Appellants submits the reason of difference that the difference is due to reimbursement of electricity charges. A show cause notice was issued demanding service tax on reimbursement of electricity expenses. The show cause notice also proposed interest thereon and also to impose penalties.

The adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand of Rs. 45,65,552 along with interest and imposed equal penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. In addition, penalty of Rs. 10,000 under Section 77 was also imposed. Being aggrieved by such order, Appellant filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) who vide impugned Order-In-Appeal upheld the same. Hence, present Appeal.

The issue is squarely covered by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Kiran Gems Pvt. Ltd. where it was held that, electricity charges reimbursed to the service provider by the service recipient are not includable in gross value of renting of immovable property service. Said principle is equally applicable in the instant case.

The issue involved has been settled as the electricity charges reimbursed to the service provider by the service recipient not includible in gross value of service. Present Tribunal is of the view that the demand is not sustainable. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. Appeal allowed.

Tags : DEMAND   CONFIRMATION   LEGALITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved