Top
Begin typing your search above and press return to search.

Service Tax not payable by Stock Broking Company on Computer-to-Computer Linkage Charges, Commission on Public Issue and Inter Settlement Charges: CESTAT [Read Order]

Service Tax not payable by Stock Broking Company on Computer-to-Computer Linkage Charges, Commission on Public Issue and Inter Settlement Charges: CESTAT [Read Order]
X

The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ), Ahmedabad Bench observed that no service tax payable by Stock Broking Company on Computer-to-Computer Linkage charges, Commission on Public Issue and Inter Settlement charges. The issue involved in the present case is that whether the appellant, Edelweiss Financial Advisors Limitedacting as Stock Broking Company are liable...


The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ), Ahmedabad Bench observed that no service tax payable by Stock Broking Company on Computer-to-Computer Linkage charges, Commission on Public Issue and Inter Settlement charges.

The issue involved in the present case is that whether the appellant, Edelweiss Financial Advisors Limitedacting as Stock Broking Company are liable to pay service tax on various charges such as Computer to Computer Linkage charges, Commission on Public Issue and Inter Settlement charges.

Amal Dave, the Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that identical issue in the appellant’s own case has been decided by this Tribunal in their favour therefore the impugned order is not sustainable and the same may be set-aside and the appeal be allowed.Tara Prakash, the Assistant Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterated the findings of the impugned order.

In the light of the decision of the Tribunal vide order No. A/11854-11858/2018 wherein the present appellant is also one of the appellants, has decided the same issue in their favour.

In the above-mentioned case it was observed that “The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the service tax demand on CTCL Charges and income from public issues/RBI bonds along with pro rata penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. However, demand on commission on distribution of mutual funds was dropped. Since we have already set aside the demand of service tax pertaining to CTCL charges and income from public issues/RBI bonds the imposition of penalty under Section 76 is therefore not sustainable and is therefore set aside.”

A Coram consisting of Ramesh Nair, Judicial Member and Raju, Technical Member observed that “In view of the above decision, the issue in hand is no longer resintegra. Accordingly, following the above Tribunal decision the impugned order is set-aside and the appeal is allowed.”

To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates

Next Story

Related Stories

Advertisement
Advertisement
All Rights Reserved. Copyright @2019