No service tax applicable on reimbursements, rules Indian Supreme Court
International Tax Review is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

No service tax applicable on reimbursements, rules Indian Supreme Court

Sponsored by

logo.png
The new instructions concern the imports of goods and services

The Apex Court in a recent judgment (Civil Appeal number 2013 of 2014) held that no service tax should apply on expenditures recovered as reimbursements before May 14 2015.

The Apex Court affirmed the Delhi High Court ruling which opined that the scope of Rule 5 went beyond the purview of Section 67 of the Service Tax Law and hence impermissible.

The taxpayers were rendering services in the following four categories:

  • Consulting engineering;

  • Share transfer agency;

  • Custom house agent covered by the head 'clearing and forwarding agent'; and

  • Site formation and clearance, excavation and earth moving, and demolition.

While rendering the aforesaid services, the taxpayers also received reimbursements for certain activities undertaken by them which in their view should not have been included in the 'gross amount charged' for the levying of service tax. As per Rule 5, the value of these reimbursable activities should also have been included as part of the services provided.

In terms of the service tax legislation, the rules have been formulated for carrying out the provisions of the law which provides for levying, quantification and collection of service tax.

Section 67 categorically mentions that service tax should apply only on the gross amount charged for providing such a taxable service. Therefore, any amount which does not apply in relation to providing the taxable service cannot be brought within the tax net. Once this interpretation was given, it was clear that Rule 5 went far beyond the mandate of Section 67. It is established law that rules cannot go beyond the statute. The aforesaid view is further strengthened by the manner in which the legislature itself was enacted. On realising that Section 67 did not include reimbursable expenses, the legislature suitably amended the law to include reimbursable expenditure or cost incurred by the service provider in the course of providing or agreeing to provide a taxable service. Thus, only with effect from May 14 2015, by virtue of provisions of Section 67 itself, could such reimbursable expenditure or costs form part of the valuation of the taxable services for the purposes of charging service tax.

bagri.jpg

Niraj Bagri (niraj.bagri@dhruvaadvisors.com)

Dhruva Advisors

Tel: +91 22 6108 1000

Website: www.dhruvaadvisors.com

more across site & bottom lb ros

More from across our site

The reported warning follows EY accumulating extra debt to deal with the costs of its failed Project Everest
Law firms that pay close attention to their client relationships are more likely to win repeat work, according to a survey of nearly 29,000 in-house counsel
Paul Griggs, the firm’s inbound US senior partner, will reverse a move by the incumbent leader; in other news, RSM has announced its new CEO
The EMEA research period is open until May 31
Luis Coronado suggests companies should embrace technology to assist with TP data reporting, as the ‘big four’ firm unveils a TP survey of over 1,000 professionals
The proposed matrix will help revenue officers track intra-company transactions from multinationals
The full list of finalists has been revealed and the winners will be presented on June 20 at the Metropolitan Club in New York
The ‘big four’ firm has threatened to legally pursue those behind the letter, which has been circulating on social media
The guidelines have been established in the wake of multiple tax scandals and controversies that have rocked the accounting profession
KPMG Netherlands’ former head of assurance also received a permanent bar and $150,000 fine; in other news, asset management firm BlackRock lost a $13.5bn UK tax appeal
Gift this article