Service tax liability on prepaid recharge voucher
This query is : Resolved
04 September 2012
A Distributor is selling prepaid recharge voucher to retailer on behalf of co.
Is this transaction is liable for service tax?
If yes/ no please provide circular.
Is this transaction is liable for service tax?
If yes/ no please provide circular.
05 September 2012
Distributor of recharge vouchers are exempted from payment of service tax. Please see the mega notification for negative list No.25/2012 dt 20.06.12.
Sl No.29. Services by the following persons in respective capacities -
a selling agent or a distributor of SIM cards or recharge coupon vouchers;
Since these are treated as commodities there is no service tax.
Sl No.29. Services by the following persons in respective capacities -
a selling agent or a distributor of SIM cards or recharge coupon vouchers;
Since these are treated as commodities there is no service tax.
Message likes :
1 times
06 September 2012
Dear sir,
you tell me above notification on 05/09/2012.
but my dispute before the notification date
you tell me above notification on 05/09/2012.
but my dispute before the notification date
06 September 2012
Please read this case carefully & now tell me distributor is liable for service tax and also provide me related case low for valid evidence
In 'Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai V. Reliance Communications Ltd.,' 2008 -TMI - 30438 - CESTAT MUMBAI the respondents were engaged in providing services under the category of telephone services, on line information and database access and retrieval services, leased circuits etc., The respondents filed the refund claim on the ground that they have paid the service tax on Maximum Retail Price (MRP) of the recharge coupon vouchers for their prepaid services but the recharge vouchers had actually been sold to the distributors at a discounted price from the MRP and some had also been distributed free of cost to distributors/operators. The claim was filed on the ground that the money value of the discount given on the recharge vouchers had not been received by the respondent and hence service tax is not payable on those as per Explanation (2) of Sec. 67 of the Finance Act, 1994 and Rule 6 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. The refund claim was rejected on the ground that the invoices submitted in support of the claim were of Reliance Communications Infrastructure Ltd., ('RCIL' for short) and not respondents viz., Reliance Communications Ltd., ('RCL' for short).
The tribunal held that RCIL was authorized by RCL to issue invoices on their behalf. It is also undisputed that recharge coupon vouchers were sold by the RCIL to the distributors at a value which is less than that is printed on them. If that be so, it is the fact the RCIL has recovered only discounted value from the distributors. Provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 are that the service tax liability on a service provider is only for the amount which he gets paid.
The tribunal further held that RCIL is a service provider and having paid the service tax liability on the entire MRP of the recharge coupon vouchers they are eligible for the amount of the refund claim on the amount which is not realized by them from their distributors.
In 'Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai V. Reliance Communications Ltd.,' 2008 -TMI - 30438 - CESTAT MUMBAI the respondents were engaged in providing services under the category of telephone services, on line information and database access and retrieval services, leased circuits etc., The respondents filed the refund claim on the ground that they have paid the service tax on Maximum Retail Price (MRP) of the recharge coupon vouchers for their prepaid services but the recharge vouchers had actually been sold to the distributors at a discounted price from the MRP and some had also been distributed free of cost to distributors/operators. The claim was filed on the ground that the money value of the discount given on the recharge vouchers had not been received by the respondent and hence service tax is not payable on those as per Explanation (2) of Sec. 67 of the Finance Act, 1994 and Rule 6 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. The refund claim was rejected on the ground that the invoices submitted in support of the claim were of Reliance Communications Infrastructure Ltd., ('RCIL' for short) and not respondents viz., Reliance Communications Ltd., ('RCL' for short).
The tribunal held that RCIL was authorized by RCL to issue invoices on their behalf. It is also undisputed that recharge coupon vouchers were sold by the RCIL to the distributors at a value which is less than that is printed on them. If that be so, it is the fact the RCIL has recovered only discounted value from the distributors. Provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 are that the service tax liability on a service provider is only for the amount which he gets paid.
The tribunal further held that RCIL is a service provider and having paid the service tax liability on the entire MRP of the recharge coupon vouchers they are eligible for the amount of the refund claim on the amount which is not realized by them from their distributors.
You need to be the querist or approved CAclub expert to take part in this query .
Click here to login now
Click here to login now
Similar Resolved Queries
Unanswered Queries
- Post Office RD Interest
- Building and other construction workers welfare cess act 1996
- Applicable TDS for Purchase of Flat from NRI
- Eway bill for machinery reparing
- Bank Accounts in Balance Sheet for ITR 3
- ITR 3 FILING OF AN INDIVIDUAL (PARTNER IN A PARTNERSHIP fIRM)
- Annual return of gst limit
- TDS ON CASH WITHDRAWALS...
- Form 10BD Filling
- Registration as Authorised Representative of minor
- ESIC- Employee Registration
- Delisted shares sold in off market/ Rebate u/s87A
- In Exports Sales HSN details where to fill
- Opting out" of regime provided under subsection (1A) of Section 115BAC but Form 10IEA is not filed.
- Difference in tax comparison report
- Gst invoice numbering and delivery challan numbering
- Sales amount in Gstr1
- E Commerce GSTR1 & 3B how to file
- GST Cancellation without jurisdiction
- Legal Opinion on Registrar's Refusal to Investigate a Society for Non-Renewal and Non-Compliance
Trending Online Classes
-
DT & Audit (Exam Oriented Fastrack Batch) - For May 26 Exams and onwards Full English
CA Bhanwar Borana & CA Shubham Keswani
Subscribe to Pro
Join an elite circle of professionals
CAclubindia
