75th Founding Day Lecture Meeting on “India@2030” Know More

May 2012

Mutual fund distribution — Liability to pay service tax on commission — As per Service Tax Rules, 1994 such liability was on recipient of services i.e., mutual fund company — If they did not pay it, liability was not transferred to mutual fund distributor.

By Puloma Dalal
Jayesh Gogri
Chartered Accountants
Reading Time 1 mins
fiogf49gjkf0d
(2012) 25 STR 481 (Tri-Del.) — Raj Ratan Castings Pvt. Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Kanpur.

Mutual fund distribution — Liability to pay service tax on commission — As per Service Tax Rules, 1994 such liability was on recipient of services i.e., mutual fund company — If they did not pay it, liability was not transferred to mutual fund distributor.


Facts:

The appellant was a distributor of mutual fund units who received commission from mutual fund companies or asset management companies. The commission received by the appellant from the said companies, was taxed by the authorities on the ground that it provided Business Auxiliary Services to the mutual fund company.

Held:

It was held that the liability to pay tax is of the service recipient i.e., the mutual fund company. If it was not paid by the company, proceedings have to be started against the company and the liability will not transfer to the mutual fund distributor.

Download PDF

You May Also Like

Tax liability — Relevant date — Rate of tax — Advance payment — Demand for differential tax due to subsequent change of rate of tax — Rate of service tax increased from 8 to 10.2% w.e.f. 10-9-2004 — Appellant received advance payment before 10-9-2004 — Appellant paid tax on full value received — Department did not take any objection to such payment in advance — Held, rate that was applicable at the time of receipt of value of service will apply in a case where the appellant chose to pay tax on

Appellant, a labour contractor — Conversion process of tin plate to containers in the premises of M/s. NKPL — Tax levied on the appellant — The appellant was providing manpower recruitment or supply agency services — On the basis of facts it was held that there was no service tax liability.