JCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN vs. M/S. R & B FALCON (A) PTY LTD., MUMBAI

We have heard the rival submissions on the issue under consideration and have gone through the entire material available on record. The contention of the ld. AR at the outset has been that the core issue as culled out in grounds of appeal stands settled in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal in the case of assessee itself for preceding assessment year 2010-11 vide order dated 29.04.2016 (ITA No. 1048/Del/2014) in the identical facts and circumstances of the case. The ld. DR though relied on the order of the Assessing Officer, but could not controvert the above contention of the assessee regarding the issue having been covered by the decision of coordinate Bench of Tribunal. We have gone through the above referred order of Tribunal and find that the core issue involved in this case is covered in favour of the assessee in the similar facts and circumstances. The decisionof Co-ordinate Bench in the identical the facts narrated therein read as under :

The Ld. DR further submitted that the amount mentioned in sub-section (2) of section 44BB clearly shows that the amount paid to the assessee on account of provision of services and facilities in connection with the extraction or production of mineral oil, whether paid in or outside India, are to be included. It was submitted by the Ld. DR that the service tax receipt squarely falls within the principle enunciated in Chowringhee Sales Bureau (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1973] 87 ITR 542 (SC) wherein it was laid down that sales tax charged forms part of the trading receipts and is as such liable to be assessed to income tax. The Ld. DR submitted that since then the courts have consistently held similarly for all kinds of taxes or government receipts (that were received by the assessee during the relevant PY) that these are taxable receipts and he relied on the following judicial pronouncements:

The Ld. DR submitted that in view of the above mentioned case laws, the receipt of service tax from ONGC is definitely connected with the business of exploration and / or extraction of oil and needs to be included in the aggregate amount to be brought to tax under section 44BB. He further submitted that it is not precise to categorize service tax receipt merely as a statutory liability. It is also to be categorised as contractual liability whereby the 'service receiver' agrees to bear this expense and accordingly pays the 'service provider' (assessee). It was submitted that it is the practice in the oil and gas industry to contractually bind the 'service receiver' to bear this expense. Thus, it is a matter of contract (implicit or explicit) between the parties because it is improbable / impossible that 'service receiver' will agree to reimburse a liability which is specifically that of the service provider (assessee).

On the levy of interest u/s 234B/C, it was the submission of the Ld. DR that the issue was consequential and the quantum of interest has to be essentially worked out by the Assessing Officer.

The Ld. AR, in response, submitted that the issue of service tax is covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of DIT vs Mitchell Drilling International Pty. Limited in wherein the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in its decision dated 28.09.2015 has dealt the issue at length. He submitted that in view of the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Mitchell Drilling (Supra), the issue is covered in the favour of the assessee.

We have heard the rival submissions and have also perused the records. It is seen that the issue of includibility of service tax in the gross receipts is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Mitchell Drilling International Pty Limited (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that service tax being statutory levy should not form part of gross receipts as per provisions of section 44BB of the Act. The relevant observations of the Hon'ble High Court are as under:- “8. Section 44BB (1) and (2) of the Act read as under: “44BB. (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in sections 28 to 41 and sections 43 and 43A, in the case of an assessee, being a non-resident, engaged in the business of providing services or facilities in connection with, or supplying plant and machinery on hire used, or to be used, in the prospecting for, or extraction or production of, mineral oils, a sum equal to ten per cent of the aggregate of the amounts specified in sub-section (2) shall be deemed to be the profits and gains of such business chargeable to tax under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession" : Provided that this sub-section shall not apply in a case where the provisions of section 42 or section 44D or section 44DA or section 115A or section 293A apply for the purposes of computing profits or gains or any other income referred to in those sections. (2) The amounts referred to in sub-section (1) shall be the following, namely:— (a) the amount paid or payable (whether in or out of India) to the assessee or to any person on his behalf on account of the provision of services and facilities in connection with, or supply of plant and machinery on hire used, or to be used, in the prospecting for, or extraction or production of, mineral oils in India; and (b) the amount received or deemed to be received in India by or on behalf of the assessee on account of the provision of services and facilities in connection with, or supply of plant and machinery on hire used, or to be used, in the prospecting for, or extraction or production of, mineral oils outside India.” 9. Section 44BB begins with a non obstante clause that excludes the application of Sections 28 to 41 and Sections 43 and 43A to assessments under Section 44 BB. It introduces the concept of presumptive income and states that 10% credit of the amounts paid or payable or deemed to be received by the Assessee on account of “the provision of services and facilities in connection with, or supply of plant and machinery on hire used, or to be used, in the prospecting for, or extraction or production of, mineral oils in India” shall be deemed to be the profits and gains of the chargeable to tax. The purpose of this provision is to tax what can be legitimately considered as income of the Assessee earned from its business and profession.

It is in this context that the question arises whether the service tax collected by the Assessee and passed on to the Government from the person to whom it has provided the services can legitimately be considered to form part of the gross receipts for the purposes of computation of the Assessee’s ‘presumptive income’ under Section 44BB of the Act.

In Chowringhee Sales Bureau (supra) sales tax in the sum of Rs. 32,986 was collected and kept by the Assessee in a separate ‘sales tax collection account’. The question considered by the Supreme Court was: ‘Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the sum of Rs. 32,986 had been validly excluded from the assessee's business income for the relevant assessment year?”. However, there the Assessee did not deposit the amount collected by it as sales tax in the State exchequer since it took the stand that the statutory provision creating that liability upon it was not valid. In the circumstances, the Supreme Court held that the sales tax collected, and not deposited with the treasury, would form part of the Assessee’s trading receipt.

The decision in George Oakes (P) Ltd. (supra) was concerned with the constitutional validity of the Madras General Sales (Definition of Turnover and Validation of Assessments) Act, 1954 on the ground that the word turnover was defined to include sales tax collected by the dealer on inter-state sales. Upholding the validity of the said statute the Supreme Court held that “the expression ‘turnover’ means the aggregate amount for which goods are bought or sold, whether for cash or for deferred payment or other valuable consideration, and when a sale attracts purchase tax and the tax is passed on to the consumer, what the buyer has to pay for the goods includes the tax as well and the aggregate amount so paid would fall within the definition of turnover.” Since the tax collected by the selling dealer from the purchaser was part of the price for which the goods were sold, the legislature was not incompetent to enact a statute pursuant to Entry 54 in List II make the tax so paid a part of the turnover of the dealer.

In the considered view of the Court, both the aforementioned decisions were rendered in the specific contexts in which the questions arose before the Court. In other words the interpretation placed by the Court on the expression “trading receipt’ or ‘turnover’ in the said decisions was determined by the context. The later decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Lakshmi Machine Works (supra) which sought to interpret the expression ‘turnover’ was also in another specific context. There the question before the Supreme Court was “whether excise duty and sales tax were includible in the ‘total turnover’ which was the denominator in the formula contained in Section 80 HHC (3) as it stood in the material time?” The Supreme Court considered its earlier decision in Chowringhee Sales Bureau (supra) and answered the question in the negative. The Supreme Court noted that for the purposes of computing the ‘total turnover’ for the purpose of Section 80 HHC (3) brokerage, commission, interest etc. did not form part of the business profits because they did not involve any element of export turnover. It was observed: “just as commission received by an assessee is relatable to exports and yet it cannot form part of ‘turnover’, excise duty and sales-tax also cannot form part of the ‘turnover’.” The object of the legislature in enacting Section 80 HHC of the Act was to confer a benefit on profits accruing with reference to export turnover. Therefore, "turnover" was the requirement. “Commission, rent, interest etc. did not involve any turnover.” It was concluded that ‘sales tax and excise duty’ like the aforementioned tools like interest, rent etc. ‘also do not have any element of ‘turn over’’.

In CIT v. Lakshmi Machine Works (supra), the Supreme Court approved the decision of the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Sudarshan Chemicals Industries Ltd. (supra) which in turn considered the decision of the Supreme Court in George Oakes (P) Ltd. (supra). In the considered view of the Court, the decision of the Supreme Court in Lakshmi Machines Works (supra) is sufficient to answer the question framed in the present appeal in favour of the Assessee. The service tax collected by the Assessee does not have any element of income and therefore cannot form part of the gross receipts for the purposes of computing the ‘presumptive income’ of the Assessee under Section 44 BB of the Act.

The Court concurs with the decision of the High Court of Uttarakhand in DIT v. Schlumberger Asia Services Ltd (supra) which held that the reimbursement received by the Assessee of the customs duty paid on equipment imported by it for rendering services would not form part of the gross receipts for the purposes of Section 44 BB of the Act.

The Court accordingly holds that for the purposes of computing the ‘presumptive income’ of the assessee for the purposes of Section 44 BB of the Act, the service tax collected by the Assessee on the amount paid t it for rendering services is not to be included in the gross receipts in terms of Section 44 BB (2) read with Section 44 BB (1). The service tax is not an amount paid or payable, or received or deemed to be received by the Assessee for the services rendered by it. The Assessee is only collecting the service tax for passing it on to the government.

The Court further notes that the position has been made explicit by the CBDT itself in two of its circulars. In Circular No. 4/2008 dated 28th April 2008 it was clarified that “Service tax paid by the tenant doesn't partake the nature of "income" of the landlord. The landlord only acts as a collecting agency for Government for collection of Service Tax. Therefore, it has been decided that tax deduction at source) under sections 194-I of Income Tax Act would be required to be made on the amount of rent paid/payable without including the service tax.’ In Circular No. 1/2014 dated 13th January 2014, it has been clarified that service tax is not to be included in the fees for professional services or technical services and no TDS is required to be made on the service tax component under Section 194J of the Act.

The question framed, is therefore, answered in the negative i.e. favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue.”

Similar view has been expressed by Co-ordinate Bench in the case of other assessee, Transocean Offshore, Discoverer, who is one of the respondents in these appeals before us, where also, the issue under consideration stands decided by the Tribunal in favour of assessee vide order dated 15.10.2014. Therefore, respectfully following the above decisions of Co-ordinate Benches, all the appeals of the Revenue in the cases of different assessees before us stand dismissed, as our this decision would apply mutatis mutandis in other four appeals before us as noted above.