Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006 - Constitutional validity of Rule 5
Re-imbursement of expenses in the value of taxable services for the purposes of levy of service tax - Company providing consulting engineering services - Petitioner receives payments not only for its service but is also reimbursed expenses incurred by it such as air travel, hotel stay, etc - It was not paying any service tax in respect of the expenses incurred by it, which was reimbursed by the clients
Section 67 states that 'Service tax was to be charged on the gross value including reimbursable and out of pocket expenses' –
Charging Section 66 states that 'the charge of service tax is on the value of taxable services' - Section 67 (1) makes the provisions of the section subject to the provisions of Chapter V, which includes Section 66 - This is a clear mandate that the value of taxable services for charging service tax has to be in consonance with Section 66 which levies a tax only on the taxable service and nothing else - Rule 5 (1) which provides for inclusion of the expenditure or costs incurred by the service provider in the course of providing the taxable service in the value for the purpose of charging service tax is ultra vires Section 66 and 67.
Rule 5 may also result in double taxation - If the expenses on air travel tickets are already subject to service tax and is included in the bill, to charge service tax again on the expense would certainly amount to double taxation. It is true that there can be double taxation, but it is equally true that it should be clearly provided for and intended; at any rate, double taxation cannot be enforced by implication
Even if the rule has been made under Section 94 of the Act which provides for delegated legislation and authorises the Central Government to make rules by notification in the official gazette, such rules can only be made "for carrying out the provisions of this Chapter" i.e. Chapter V of the Act which provides for the levy, quantification and collection of the service tax. The power to make rules can never exceed or go beyond the section which provides for the charge or collection of the service tax.
"The Rules were meant only for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the Act and they could not take away what was conferred by the Act or whittle down its effect." as decided in case of Taj Mahal Hotel (1971 (8) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT)
Rule 5 (1) of the Rules runs counter and is repugnant to Sections 66 and 67 of the Act and to that extent it is ultra vires. It purports to tax not what is due from the service provider under the charging Section, but it seeks to extract something more from him by including in the valuation of the taxable service the other expenditure and costs which are incurred by the service provider "in the course of providing taxable service". What is brought to charge under the relevant Sections is only the consideration for the taxable service. By including the expenditure and costs, Rule 5(1) goes far beyond the charging provisions and cannot be upheld.
Sub-ordinate legislation - The fact that the rules framed under the Act have to be laid before each House of Parliament would not confer validity on a rule if it is made not in conformity with Section 40 of the Act.
Quash the show-cause notice and allow the writ petition in favour of assessee.
Delhi High Court strikes down Rule 5(1) of Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules - Holds Rule is ultra vires Sections 66 and 67 of Finance Act, 1994
WHILE the Revenue had a winning spree in Supreme Court in recent past, it has got a big jolt from the Delhi High Court a few days back. In a judgment that has far reaching consequences, ( including a possible retrospective amendment) the High Court has struck down the Rule 5(1) of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006 as ultra vires the provisions of Section 66 and 67 of the Finance Act, 1994.
The Petitioner Company is engaged in providing consulting engineer services and receives payments not only for its service but is also reimbursed expenses incurred by it such as air travel, hotel stay, etc. It was paying service tax in respect of amounts received by it for services rendered to its clients. It was not paying any service tax in respect of the expenses incurred by it, which was reimbursed by the clients. Department issued Show Cause Notice demanding service tax on the expenses reimbursed by invoking the provisions of Rule 5(1) of the Service Tax (Determination of value) Rules 2006. The Petitioner has challenged the provisions of Rule 5(1) in a Writ Petition.
The High Court, while allowing the Petition filed by the assessee, held:
++ Section 67, both before and after 01.05.2006 authorises the determination of the value of the taxable service for the purpose of charging service tax under Section 66 as the gross amount charged by the service provider for such service provided or to be provided by him, in a case where the consideration for the service is money. It is only the value of such service that is to say, the value of the service rendered by the petitioner to NHAI, which is that of a consulting engineer, that can be brought to charge and nothing more. The quantification of the value of the service can therefore never exceed the gross amount charged by the service provider for the service provided by him. Even if the rule has been made under Section 94 of the Act which provides for delegated legislation and authorises the Central Government to make rules by notification in the official gazette, such rules can only be made "for carrying out the provisions of this Chapter" i.e. Chapter V of the Act which provides for the levy, quantification and collection of the service tax. The power to make rules can never exceed or go beyond the section which provides for the charge or collection of the service tax.
++ We have no hesitation in ruling that Rule 5 (1) which provides for inclusion of the expenditure or costs incurred by the service provider in the course of providing the taxable service in the value for the purpose of charging service tax is ultra vires Section 66 and 67 and travels much beyond the scope of those sections. To that extent it has to be struck down as bad in law. The expenditure or costs incurred by the service provider in the course of providing the taxable service can never be considered as the gross amount charged by the service provider "for such service" provided by him.
++ In the illustration given ( under Rule 5), the architect who renders the service incurs expenses such as telephone charges, air travel tickets, hotel accommodation, etc. to enable him to effectively perform the services. The illustration, therefore, says that these expenses are to be included in the value of the taxable service. The illustration clearly shows how the boundaries of Section 67 are breached by the Rule.
++ There is ample authority for the proposition that the rules cannot override or overreach the provisions of the main enactment.
++ Section 66 levies service tax at a particular rate on the value of taxable services. Section 67 (1) makes the provisions of the section subject to the provisions of Chapter V, which includes Section 66. This is a clear mandate that the value of taxable services for charging service tax has to be in consonance with Section 66 which levies a tax only on the taxable service and nothing else. There is thus in built mechanism to ensure that only the taxable service shall be evaluated under the provisions of 67. The thread which runs through Sections 66, 67 and Section 94, which empowers the Central Government to make rules for carrying out the provisions of Chapter V of the Act is manifest, in the sense that only the service actually provided by the service provider can be valued and assessed to service tax. We are, therefore, undoubtedly of the opinion that Rule 5 (1) of the Rules runs counter and is repugnant to Sections 66 and 67 of the Act and to that extent it is ultra vires.
