The CESTAT, Chennai, in M/s ABC Consultants Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax [Service Tax Appeal No. 40688 of 2014 dated August 04, 2023] set aside the demand of service tax on the reimbursed amount and held that the assessee only paying advertisement charges on behalf of clients which was later reimbursed to him on actual basis thus the demand of service tax is unsustainable.
FACTS:
M/s ABC Consultants Pvt. Ltd. (“the Appellant”) is rendering ‘manpower recruitment or supply agency’ service.
Revenue Department (“the Respondent”) initiated the verification of accounts and found that the Appellant had received INR 11,86,998/- towards reimbursement of advertisement charges from the clients for the period of October 2007 to January 2010, on which apparently, service tax was not paid.
A Show Cause Notice dated April 20, 2010 (“the SCN”) was issued proposing the demand of service tax of INR 1,46,713/- on advertisement reimbursement charges. The Appellant filed the reply denying the demand of service tax. However, the Adjudicating Authority vide an order dated November 18, 2010 (“the OIO”) confirming the demand of service tax proposed in the SCN.
Aggrieved by the OIO, the Appellant filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority challenging the OIO who vide an order dated December 20, 2013 (“the OIA”) confirmed the demand of service tax and recalculated the demand of service tax at INR 1,30,574/-.
Aggrieved by the OIA, the Appellant filed an appeal before the CESTAT, Chennai challenging the OIO.
Issue:
Whether reimbursable charges attract service tax liability?
Held:
The CESTAT, Chennai in Service Tax Appeal No. 40688 of 2014 held as under:
- Relied upon the judgement of Commissioner of Service Tax v. Sangamitra Services Agency [2014 (33) S.T.R. 137 (Mad.)] wherein the Hon’ble Madras High Court held that the agreement between the assessee and client speaks about reimbursable expenses viz., media, travel and stay costs etc., and these have to be invoiced at cost. The reimbursable charges were incurred for one-time occasion and was only expenses incurred on behalf of the client which were reimbursed on actual basis therefore, the demand of service tax was unsustainable.
- Held that, the Appellant was only paying advertisement charges on behalf of clients which was later reimbursed to him on actual basis thus, the demand of service tax was unsustainable.
(Author can be reached at info@a2ztaxcorp.com)
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are strictly of the author and A2Z Taxcorp LLP. The contents of this article are solely for informational purpose and for the reader’s personal non-commercial use. It does not constitute professional advice or recommendation of firm. Neither the author nor firm and its affiliates accepts any liabilities for any loss or damage of any kind arising out of any information in this article nor for any actions taken in reliance thereon. Further, no portion of our article or newsletter should be used for any purpose(s) unless authorized in writing and we reserve a legal right for any infringement on usage of our article or newsletter without prior permission.
_________________________________________________________________________________
 |
|
🥳 Celebrate Independence Day with Our Exclusive Offer! 🔥 Limited-Time Offer: Grab a Special Deal on our Comprehensive GST Courses! 1️⃣ “GST Input Tax Credit (ITC)” 📚📹 2️⃣ “Scrutiny Notices, Assessment, Audit, Inspection, Search, Seizure and Arrest under GST” 📊📹 👨🏻🏫 Led by Renowned Adv (CA) Bimal Jain 📌 Hurry! Special Independence Day Offer Valid Until August 20, 2023 📝 Course Highlights: ✔️ Get an Exclusive E-Certificate 📞 For Details or Queries: 💥 Don’t Miss Out on This Incredible Opportunity to Enhance Your GST Expertise! 💥 |