NCLAT: Can’t Dismiss Restoration App. if Filed in 30 Days from Date of Dismissal of Original App.  ||  Delhi HC: Communication between Parties through Whatsapp Constitute Valid Agreement  ||  Delhi HC Seeks Response from Govt. Over Penalties on Petrol Pumps Supplying Fuel to Old Vehicles  ||  Centre Notifies "Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Rules, 2025"  ||  Del. HC: Can’t Reject TM Owner’s Claim Merely because Defendant Could have Sought Removal of Mark  ||  Bombay HC: Cannot Treat Sole Director of OPC, Parallelly with Separate Legal Entity  ||  Delhi HC: Can Apply 'Family of Marks' Concept to Injunct Specific Marks  ||  HP HC: Can’t Set Aside Ex-Parte Decree for Mere Irregularity  ||  Cal. HC: Order by HC Bench Not Conferred With Determination by Roster is Void  ||  Calcutta HC: Purchase Order Including Arbitration Agreement to Prevail Over Tax Invoice Lacking it    

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 2025 - All Rights Reserved