BHANWAR LAL GURJAR V. COMMISSIONER OF CGST AND SERVICE TAX

EXCIA/134/2018

AI Insights

The case involves Bhanwar Lal Gurjar, the appellant, who challenged the order of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, which confirmed the service tax demand on reimbursable expenses like Provident Fund and ESI contributions for the financial year 2011-12. The appellant argued that these expenses, being reimbursable, should not be included in the taxable value for service tax, referencing the Supreme Court's ruling in a similar case. The respondent, Commissioner of CGST & Service Tax, supported the inclusion of these expenses in the taxable value. The High Court of Rajasthan examined the legal provisions under the Finance Act, 1994, and the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006, and found in favor of the appellant, citing the Supreme Court's precedent and the principle of non-retroactivity in tax legislation.

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 726195 (HC-RAJASTHAN)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 14-12-2019
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Union of India Vs. Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt. Ltd., Security Agencies Association Vs. Union of India & Others
• Laws Referred To: Finance Act, 1994, Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: SIDDHARTH RANKA
• Assessee Lawyers: SAMEER JAIN; DAKSH PAREEK; ARJUN SINGH
• Keywords: ESI; Limitation of time; Provident fund; Reimbursable Expenses; Service tax
• Section: 73(1); 78; 67; 76

Judgement Text

"HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D. B. Central Excise (Service Tax) Appeal No. 134/2018 Bhanwar Lal Gurjar, Village Jodhras, Post Malola, District Bhilwara (Raj) ----Appellant Versus Commissioner of CGST & Service Tax, NCR Building, Statue Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur (erstwhile known as Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Jaipur-II, NCRB Building Statue Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur) ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sameer Jain with Mr. Daksh Pareek and Mr. Arjun Singh. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Siddharth Ranka. HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment 14/12/2019 Appellant has filed this appeal challenging part of order dated 20.03.2018 passed by Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’), whereby, appeal of the appellant with regard to demand of service tax for the financial year 2011-12 was disposed of and adjudged demand beyond the normal period of limitation was confirmed. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that vide show cause notice dated 27.09.2012 (Annexure-1), service tax was demanded from the appellant with regard to the contribution towards Provident Fund and ESI of the labour provided by the appellant to his clients. Learned counsel has (2 of 13) [EXCIA-134/2018] submitted that so far as Rule 5 of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’) is concerned, the same was struck down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. 2018 (10) G.S.T.L. 401 (S.C.). Hence, reimbursable expenses could not be included for calculating assessable value on which service tax is leviable. So far as the amount sought to be included for calculating service tax is concerned, the same was being deposited in the accounts of the labour, whereas, the appellant was only receiving commission for providing manpower. Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the appeal and has submitted that the amount paid towards Provident Fund and ESI contribution was liable to be included towards gross amount while calculating the service tax liability as per Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) In support of his argument, learned counsel has placed reliance on decision of the Division Bench of Kerala High Court in Security Agencies Association Vs. Union of India & Others, W.A. No. 812/2012 decided on 07.01.2019. In response to the submissions made by learned counsel for the respondent, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that judgment of the Division Bench of Kerala High Court in Security Agencies Association (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent was not applicable to the facts of the present case as the Kerala High Court was dealing with a case prior to the amendment effected on 01.05.2006 vis-à-vis Section 67 of the Act. The Hon’ble Supreme (3 of 13) [EXCIA-134/2018] Court has dealt with situation after amendment effected on 01.05.2006. At the time of admission of the appeal, following substantial question of law was framed by this Court vide order dated 06.08.2018: “Whether the learned Tribunal was right in law in confirming the demand on merits on the amount towards Provident Fund (PF), ESI, Salaries paid to Labour on actuals as re-imbursements, which was contrary to provisions of section 67 of the Finance Act and Apex Court judgment reported in 2018 (10) GSTL 401 (SC) by passing a non- speaking order violating the principles of natural justice?” The facts in the present case are not in dispute. The question involved in the present case is purely legal. Admittedly, appellant is engaged in providing manpower to his clients. Para 6 of the show cause notice dated 27.09.2012 (Annexure-1) reads as under: “6. Whereas, as per provisions of Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994, the gross amount charged for the taxable service shall include any amount received towards the taxable service before, during and after provision of such service. In terms of Rule 5 of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006, where any expenditure or cost incurred by the service provider in the course of providing taxable service, all such expenditure or costs shall be treated as consideration for the taxable service provided or to be provided and shall be included in the value for the purpose of charging service tax on the said service.” Thus perusal of the above paragraph reveals that service tax was sought to be assessed as per provision of Section 67 of the Act read with Rule 5 of the Rules. Para 14.04 of the Order-in-Original dated 28.03.2014 (Annexure-2) reads as under: “14.04 Further, to look into as to whether the salary actually paid to the labour is excludable from the taxable value for the purpose of charging service tax, it is prudent to look into the relevant provisions of Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006. I find that in terms of Rule 5 of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006, where any expenditure or cost is incurred by the service provider in the (4 of 13) [EXCIA-134/2018] course of providing taxable service, all such expenditure or costs shall be treated as consideration for the taxable service provided or to be provided and shall be included in the value for the purpose of charging service tax on the said service. I further find that certain cases in which the commission, costs, etc. will be included or excluded are given in Rule 6 of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006 and even in terms of this rule, the salary actually paid to the labour and PF & ESI deposited with the Government are not excludable from the consideration received from the service receivers by the assessee.” While dealing with the controversy involved in the present case, the Tribunal has observed as under: “6. We find that the period of dispute, in this case, is from April, 2007 to March, 2012 and the show cause notice was issued on 27/09/2012. For issuance of show cause notice beyond the normal period of one year, the Department has to show that non-payment of Service Tax was due to suppression, fraud, misstatement, etc, with the intent to defraud the Government revenue. We find that based on the records maintained by the appellant, the Department has raised the Service Tax demand and also the consultant has specifically stated that no Service Tax was required to be paid on the reimbursable amount such as, E.S.I. and P.F. etc. Further, the consultant also opined that no Service Tax is required to be paid on the labour charges. Thus, in our considered view, the ingredients mentioned in the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Act are absent in this case. Thus, part of the confirmed adjudged demand is barred by limitation of time. We find that the service tax demand has also been confirmed within the normal period of limitation, which according to our opinion, should be paid by the appellant. We also find that non-payment of service tax by the appellant was due to the bonafide belief that same was not payable by the appellant. Thus, Section 80 of the Act, in this case, can be invoked for non-imposition of penalties under Section 76 and 78 of the Act. 7. In view of above, we partly allow the appeal to the extent of setting aside the impugned order, so far as it confirmed the adjudged demand beyond the normal period of limitation. The penalties imposed in the said order is set aside.” Thus, controversy involved in the present case relates to short payment of service tax for the financial year 2011-12. So far as Rule 5 of the Rules dealing with inclusion in or exclusion from value of certain expenditure or costs, is concerned, the same came up for consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court in Union (5 of 13) [EXCIA-134/2018] of India Vs. Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and it was held as under: “12. It was further submitted that Section 67 of the Act was amended w.e.f. May 1, 2006 and this also retained the concept of ‘the gross amount charged’ for the purpose of arriving at valuation on which the service tax is to be paid. The learned counsel pointed out that sub-section (4) of amended Section 67 categorically provides that the value has to be determined in such a manner as may be prescribed and in pursuant thereto, Rule 5 of the Rules which came into effect from June 1, 2007, provided for ‘inclusion in or exclusion from value of certain expenditure or costs’. It was submitted that there was no dispute that as per this Rule, all such expenditure or costs which are incurred by the service provider in the course of providing taxable services are to be treated as consideration for the taxable services provided or to be provided for arriving at valuation for the purpose of charging service tax, except those costs which were specifically excluded under sub- rule (2) of Rule 5. Submission was that since Section 67 specifically lays down the principle of gross amount charged by a service provider for the services provided or to be provided, Rule 5 did not go contrary to Section 67 as it only mentions what would be the meaning of gross amount charged. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 16. Mr. J.K. Mittal, Advocate, appeared for M/s. Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. He argued with emphasis that the impugned judgment of the High Court was perfectly in tune with legal position and did not call for any interference. At the outset, he pointed out that the Parliament has again amended Section 67 of the Act by the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. May 14, 2015. By this amendment, explanation has been added which now lays down that consideration includes the reimbursement of expenditure or cost incurred by the service provider. Taking clue therefrom, he developed the argument that for the first time, w.e.f. May 14, 2015, reimbursement of expenditure or cost incurred by the service provider gets included under the expression ‘consideration’, which legal regime did not prevail prior to May 14, 2015. Therefore, for the period in question, the ‘consideration’ was having limited sphere, viz. It was only in respect of taxable services provided or to be provided. On that basis, submission was that for the period in question that is covered by these appeals, there could not be any service tax on reimbursed expenses as Section 67 of the Act did not provide for such an inclusion. Mr. Mittal also referred to para 2.4 of Circular/Instructions F . No. B-43/5/97-TRU, dated June 6, 1997 wherein it is clarified that “...various (6 of 13) [EXCIA-134/2018] other reimbursable expenses incurred are not to be included for computing the service tax”. xxxxxxxxx 20. We have duly considered the aforesaid submissions made by the Learned Counsel for the Department as well as the counsel for the assessees. As can be seen, these submissions are noted in respect of Civil Appeal No. 2013 of 2014 where the assessee is providing ‘consulting engineering services’. In other appeals, though the nature of services is somewhat different, it doesn’t alter the colour of legal issue, in any manner. In the course of providing those services, the assessees had incurred certain expenses which were reimbursed by the service recepient. These expenses were not included for the purpose of valuation, while paying the service tax. Thus, the question for determination which is posed in Civil Appeal No. 2013 of 2014, answer to that would govern the outcome of the other appeals as well. Still, for the sake of completeness, we may give a brief resume of all these cases. “A. “Consulting Engineering Services” – Assessee were providing consulting services to M/s. NHAI for highway projects. They were paying Service Tax on remuneration only instead of the gross value charged from the client. SI.No. Civil Appeal details Facts Reimbursable claimed as not includible 1. 2013/2014 UOI v. Intercontinental Consultants Period: Oct., 2002- March, 2007 (Prior to coming into effect of impugned Rule 5 on 1- 6-2007] Demand: Rs. 3,55,80,38/- Assessee filed W.P. No. 6370/2008 directly against Show Cause Notice dated 17-3-2008 resulting in the impugned judgment dated 30-11-2012 Transportation, office rent, office supplies and utilities, testing charges, document printing charges, travelling, lodging, boarding etc. (post 19-4-2006) Transportation, office rent, office supplies, office furniture and equipment, reports and documents printing charges etc. [Pre 19-4- 2006]. [pages 62- 64] 2. 6090/2017 CST v. Intercontinental Consultants Period: 2007-2008 [post coming into effect of impugned Rule 5 on 1-6-2007] Demand: Rs. 1,50,62,017/- Show Cause Notice Transportation, office rent, office supplies & Utilities, testing charges, document printing charges, travelling, lodging, boarding etc. (7 of 13) [EXCIA-134/2018] dated 24-10-2008 was issued on the basis of the earlier SCN dated 17-3-2008 for the subsequent period. O-I-O dated 2-3-2010 covered both SCNs dated 17-3-2008 & 24- 10-2008. [page 157] B. Share Transfer Agency Service: SI.No. Civil Appeal details Facts Reimbursable claimed as not includible 1. 6866/2014 CST v. Through its Secretary Period: 1-4-2008 – 31- 3-2010 Demand: Rs. 13,83,479 Reimbursement of Expenses, out of pocket expenses, Postage expenses, stationery charges 2. 3360/2015 CST v. Pinnacle Share Registry Pvt. Ltd. Period: 1-5-2006 – 31- 3-2008 Demand: Rs. 13,83,479 Reimbursement of Expenses, out of pocket expenses, Postage expenses C. Custom House Agent covered by head “Clearing and Forwarding Agent” prior to 18-4-2006. Procedure of raising two sets of invoices for reimbursement of various expenses and for service/agency charged separately started after introduction of Service Tax on CHA’s (w.e.f. 15-6-1997) in view of Circular dated 6-9-1997. Invoice issued for services/agency charges alone is used for payment of Service Tax. SI.No. Civil Appeal details Facts Reimbursable claimed as not includible 1. 295-299/2014 CST v. Asshita International Period: 1-10-2003 – 31-3-2008 [pre and post coming into effect of the impugned Rule 5] Demand: 4,66,607/- SCN dated 21-4-2009. O-I-A dated 30-11- 2010 [pages 238-259] set aside demand prior to 18-4-2006 in view of circular dated 6-6- 1997. Customs Examination Charges, Misc. Expenses, Sundry expenses, strapping and re- strapping charges, documentation charges. 2. 2021/2014 CST v. Sunder Balan Period: Apr., 2008 to Aug., 2008 [post coming into effect of impugned Rule 5 on 1- 6-2007] Demand: Rs. 2,26,659/- SCN dated 24-7-2009. Customs Examination Charges, Misc. Expenses, Sundry expenses, strapping and re- strapping charges, documentation charges. (8 of 13) [EXCIA-134/2018] 3. 4340-4341/2014 CST v. Suraj Forwarders Period: 1-4-2004 to 31- 3-2008 Demand: Rs. 6,35,071/- as confirmed in the O-I-O. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the demand on the reimbursable expenses received under the category “Clearing & Forwarding Agent” Service relation to 1-4- 2004 – 17-4-2006 and confirmed the remaining demand. Customs Examination Charges, Misc. Expenses, Sundry expenses, strapping and re- strapping charges, documentation charges. 4. 8056/2015 CST V. Suraj Forwarders Not Available 5. T.P.(C) No. 10431045/2017 UOI v. Sri Chidambaram & Ors. A Transfer Petition for transferring W.P. Nos. 20832, 14521 and 20590 of 2016 pending before Hon’ble High Court at Madras. SCNs raised demands for Rs. 37.13 lacs and Rs. 53.30 lacs which were dropped by the O- I-O. However on appeals the O-I-O was set aside, hence W.P.’s were filed. CFS charges, steamer agent charges, delivery order charges, Airport/Customs charges [page 25- 26/para C] Airline/steamer charges, storage and handling charges, packing charges, transport charges, fumigation charges, insurance survey charges, original certificate charges [pages 62-62] Charges paid to: Steamer agent, Custom Freight Station, Airport Authority of India and Transporters [page 106-107] 6. 7688/2014 CST v. Shree Gayatri Clearing Agency Period: 1-10-2003 to 31-3-2008 [pre and post coming into effect of the impugned Rule 5 on 1-6-2007] Demand: Rs. 9,65,652/- SCN issued on 21-4- 2009. O-I-A dated 31- 7-2013 set aside demand for the period 18-4-2006 – 31-3-2008 in view of circular dated 6-6-1997. Customs Examination Charges, Misc. Expenses, Sundry expenses, strapping and re- strapping charges, documentation charges. (9 of 13) [EXCIA-134/2018] 7. 7685/2014 Comm. of Customs v. Ramdas Pragji Forwarders Pvt. Ltd. Period: 2004-05 & 2007-08 The Adjudicating Authority held that no Service Tax was payable on reimbursable amount prior to 18-4- 2006. The Circular dated 6-6-1997 lost its validity after introduction of Rule 5. Hence the ST was recoverable thereafter. CMC charges, CON-COR, GSEC, Transportation charges, Air and sea freight, Custom Duty, Custom Cess, fumigation charges, bottom paper, wooden etc. handling charges, labour expenses, sundry charges, airport charges, documentation charges, photocopying charges etc. [page 181-182] 8. T.P.(C) 1932- 1934/2017 CST v. Green Channel Cargo Care Period: April, 2006- March, 2009 Harbour/Airport Authority of India/CFS/CCTL and delivery order charges, harbour dues, seal verification, warehouse/godow n charges. D. Site Formation and clearance, excavation and earth moving and demolition services: Assessees conduct drilling, blasting, excavation, loading, transport etc. of overburdened at open cast Mines. Issue is whether value of Goods/material service u/s. 65(97a), is to be included in ‘Gross Amount’ u/s 67 of Finance Act for the purpose of S.T. The impugned orders follow the decisions in Bhayana Builder Intercontinental. SI.No. Civil Appeal details Facts Reimbursable claimed as not includible 1. 6864/2014 CCE & ST v. S.V. Engineering Period: 1-2-2005 – 31- 3-2009 Demand: Rs. 74,14,396/- and Rs. 12,26,38,376/- Value of Diesel and explosives supplied free of cost by service recipient. 2. 6865/2014 CCE & ST v. S.V. Engineering Period: 1-4-2009 – 31- 3-2010 Demand: Rs. 87,63,595/- Value of Diesel and explosives supplied free of cost by service recipient. 3. 4356-4537/2016 CCE & ST v. S.V. Engineering Value of diesel oil and explosives supplied free of cost by service recipient. 4. 5130/2016 CCE & ST v. Sushree Demand of Rs. 18,85,88,959/- relating Value of explosives and (10 of 13) [EXCIA-134/2018] Infra to period 1-6-2008 to 31-3-2012 SCN dated 1-10-2012 confirmed by O-I-O dated 4-5-2011 diesel oil supplied free of cost by service recipient. 5. 4975/2016 CCE & ST v. Gulf Oil Period: October, 2008 to November, 2008 Demand: Rs. 50,54,746/- Value of explosives and diesel oil supplied free of cost by service recipient. 6. 5453/2016 CCE & ST v. AMR India Period: Mar., 2008 to Mar., 2012 Demand: Rs. 57,74,30,683/- Value of explosives and diesel oil supplied free of cost 7. 10223-10224/2017 CCE & ST v. Mehrotra Buildcom Period: Apr., 2009 to Jan., 2010 & February, 2010 to September, 2010 Demand: Rs. 21,48,835/- + Rs. 18,06,655/- Value of diesel oil supplied free of cost 8. 5444/2017 CCE & ST v. Mehrotra Buildcom Not available Value of diesel oil supplied free of cost E. SI.No. Civil Appeal details Facts Reimbursable claimed as not includible 1. 10626-10627/2017 Period: Apr., 2004 to Mar., 2006 [prior to coming into effect of impugned Rule 5 on 1-6-2007] Demand: Rs. 24,70,790/- SCN dated 22-10-2008 Non-payment of Service Tax on the amount received as reimbursement by way of debit notes in addition to amount charged through invoices for providing ‘Event Management Service’, Section 65(40) and Section 65(90)(zu) [page83] Hiring of venue, merchandise, artists, travel, courier, food and beverages, administrative expenses, [page 76 @ 78] 21. Undoubtedly, Rule 5 of the Rules, 2006 brings within its sweep the expenses which are incurred while rendering the service and are reimbursed, that is, for which the service receiver has made the payments to the assessees. As per these Rules, these reimbursable expenses also form part of ‘gross amount charged’. Therefore, the core issue is as to (11 of 13) [EXCIA-134/2018] whether Section 67 of the Act permits the subordinate legislation to be enacted in the said manner, as done by Rule 5. As noted above, prior to April 19, 2006, i.e., in the absence of any such Rule, the valuation was to be done as per the provisions of Section 67 of the Act. xxxxxxxxxxx 24. In this hue, the expression ‘such’ occurring in Section 67 of the Act assumes importance. In other words, valuation of taxable services for charging service tax, the authorities are to find what is the gross amount charged for providing ‘such’ taxable services. As a fortiori, any other amount which is calculated not for providing such taxable service cannot a part of that valuation as that amount is not calculated for providing such ‘taxable service’. That according to us is the plain meaning which is to be attached to Section 67 (unamended, i.e., prior to May 1, 2006) or after its amendment, with effect from, May 1, 2006. Once this interpretation is to be given to Section 67, it hardly needs to be emphasised that Rule 5 of the Rules went much beyond the mandate of Section 67. We, therefore, find that High Court was right in interpreting Sections 66 and 67 to say that in the valuation of taxable service, the value of taxable service shall be the gross amount charged by the service provider ‘for such service’ and the valuation of tax service cannot be anything more or less than the consideration paid as quid pro qua for rendering such a service. xxxxxxxxxx 29. In the present case, the aforesaid view gets strengthened from the manner in which the Legislature itself acted. Realising that Section 67, dealing with valuation of taxable services, does not include reimbursable expenses for providing such service, the Legislature amended by Finance Act, 2015 with effect from May 14, 2015, whereby Clause (a) which deals with ‘consideration’ is suitably amended to include reimbursable expenditure or cost incurred by the service provider and charged, in the course of providing or agreeing to provide a taxable service. Thus, only with effect from May 14, 2015, by virtue of provisions of Section 67 itself, such reimbursable expenditure or cost would also form part of valuation of taxable services for charging service tax. Though, it was not argued by the learned counsel for the Department that Section 67 is a declaratory provision, nor could it be argued so, as we find that this is a substantive change brought about with the amendment to Section 67 and, therefore, has to be prospective in nature. On this aspect of the matter, we may usefully refer to the Constitution Bench judgment in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-I, New Delhi v. Vatika Township Private Limited [(2015) 1 SCC 1] wherein it was observed as under: (12 of 13) [EXCIA-134/2018] “27. A legislation, be it a statutory Act or a statutory rule or a statutory notification, may physically consists of words printed on papers. However, conceptually it is a great deal more than an ordinary prose. There is a special peculiarity in the mode of verbal communication by a legislation. A legislation is not just a series of statements, such as one finds in a work of fiction/non-fiction or even in a judgment of a court of law. There is a technique required to draft a legislation as well as to understand a legislation. Former technique is known as legislative drafting and latter one is to be found in the various principles of “interpretation of statutes”. Vis-à-vis ordinary prose, a legislation differs in its provenance, layout and features as also in the implication as to its meaning that arise by presumptions as to the intent of the maker thereof. 28. Of the various rules guiding how a legislation has to be interpreted, one established rule is that unless a contrary intention appears, a legislation is presumed not to be intended to have a retrospective operation. The idea behind the rule is that a current law should govern current activities. Law passed today cannot apply to the events of the past. If we do something today, we do it keeping in view the law of today and in force and not tomorrow's backward adjustment of it. Our belief in the nature of the law is founded on the bedrock that every human being is entitled to arrange his affairs by relying on the existing law and should not find that his plans have been retrospectively upset. This principle of law is known as lex prospicit non respicit: law looks forward not backward. As was observed in Phillips v. Eyre [(1870) LR 6 QB 1] , a retrospective legislation is contrary to the general principle that legislation by which the conduct of mankind is to be regulated when introduced for the first time to deal with future acts ought not to change the character of past transactions carried on upon the faith of the then existing law. 29. The obvious basis of the principle against retrospectivity is the principle of “fairness”, which must be the basis of every legal rule as was observed in L'Office Cherifien des Phosphates v. Yamashita-Shinnihon Steamship Co. Ltd. Thus, legislations which modified accrued rights or which impose obligations or impose new duties or attach a new disability have to be treated as prospective unless the legislative intent is clearly to give the enactment a retrospective effect; unless the legislation is for purpose of supplying an obvious omission in a former legislation or to explain a former legislation. We need not note the cornucopia of case law available on the subject because aforesaid legal position clearly emerges from the various decisions and this legal position was conceded by the counsel for the parties. In any case, we shall refer to few judgments containing this dicta, a little later.” (13 of 13) [EXCIA-134/2018] Thus, controversy involved in the present case duly stands answered by the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court as reproduced above and the judgment of the Division Bench of Kerala High Court in Security Agencies Association (supra), relied upon by learned counsel for the respondent, fails to advance the case of the respondent. The Kerala High Court was dealing with a situation prior to amendment of Section 67 of the Act effected on 01.05.2006, whereas, in the present case we are considering the case of the appellant after the amendment. Hence, the service provider (appellant) was liable to be charged service tax qua service rendered by him and the valuation of taxable service could not be anything more or less than the consideration paid for rendering such a service. Hence, substantial question of law framed in this appeal stands answered accordingly. Keeping in view the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. (supra), this appeal is allowed. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J (SABINA),J MANOJ NARWANI /18 "