Your World of Legal Intelligence
 India | 1-800-335-6202

Case nº Order No. AAR/1/2006 in Application No. AAR/01/R.O.M. (ST)/2006) of Authority for Advance Rulings, August 29, 2006 (case Google Online India Private Ltd. (GIPL) Vs Commissioner of Service Tax)

Document Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
JudgeFor Appellant: Atul Gupta, Consultant and Chun Chun Goel, Adv. and For Respondents: A.K. Roy, Joint CDR and Bipin Sapra, Jt. Commissioner
PresidentSyed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J. (Chairman), Somnath Pal and B.A. Agrawal, Members
DefenseFinance Act, 1994 - Sections 65(105) and 74; Authority for Advance Rulings (Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax) Procedure Regulations, 2005 - Regulation 18; Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 154; Authority for Advance Rulings (Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax) Procedure Rules, 2005
Resolution DateAugust 29, 2006

Order:

(Central Excise, Customs And Service Tax)

Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J. (Chairman)

1. This is an application under Rule 18 of the Authority for Advance Rulings (Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax) Procedure Regulations, 2005 (for short "the Regulations"). The applicant prays the Authority to consider modification of ruling of the Authority bearing No. AAR/30/2005 dated the 13th December, 2005 in application No. AAR/44/58/ST/2005 filed on 28th July, 2005.

It is stated in the application that there is prime facie factual error that has been considered for pronouncing of advance ruling inasmuch the Authority relied on the contention of the Commissioner that the applicant is providing various value added services, which tantamount to taxable services under the advertisement service category. This plea of the Commissioner was vehemently opposed by the applicant. The submission of the applicant was that it did not intend to provide the service of jumpstart etc. which are mentioned on the website of Google Inc. USA and which are not intended to be provided by the applicant. It is further stated that CBEC has taken an entirely different viewpoint regarding the element of advertising services liable to service tax and the change in the approach of the department has taken place between the date of the application and the pronouncement of the ruling. It goes to the root of the matter and vitally affects the rights of the parties and needs to be taken into account by way of review of the ruling pronounced by the Hon'ble Authority (emphasis added). As the Ministry of Finance till date does not consider display or exhibition of advertisement as service liable to service tax under the category of advertisement services, there is apparent scope for mis-interpretation of the ruling pronounced by the Authority. It is admitted that in the event of applicant providing any value added service relating to or connected with the preparation and making, display or exhibition of an advertisement other than that of service of display or exhibition of advertisement simpliciter, the applicant would most certainly be liable to pay service tax on the value charged from the customer for rendering such value added services. According to the applicant the value of sale of space should be excluded if that is separately identified and only tax the "value added" services like "jumpstart" or any other such value added service if the same is provided by the applicant in which case the applicant would abide by the conditions laid down in notification No. 12/2003- S.T. dated 20th June, 2003. It is on this basis that the applicant seeks modification of our...

To continue reading

Request your trial