News Flash
  • All CC Zones/DGSTI are requested to transfer the legacy data from Pre GST Commissionerates to Post GST Commissionerates under PMM module.
  • CGST rates for Goods under different Notifications as amended from time to timeclick here
  • Letter to trade and industry associations inviting suggestions for budget 2018-19 has been issued and suggestions may be sent latest by 25th November 2017click here
  • IGST Rules, 2017 as amended upto 15/11/2017 have been uploaded
  • Letters regarding delivery and upgradation of IT infrastructure
  • Circular issued for manual filing and processing of refund claims in respect of zero-rated suppliesclick here
  • Notifications and Orders issued to implement the recommendations of the GST Council made in its 23rd meeting held on 10.11.2017.
  • Applications are invited for the post of Deputy Secretary/Director(ICD) and Deputy Secretary/Director(Drawback)click here
  • Letter regarding requirement of IT infrastructure at Customs formationsclick here
  • Field formations are requested to view the GST Performas with comments from GST-Policy wing on ‘www.cbecddm.gov.in/MIS/GSTHome/Feedback’ (after login into MIS) and give Feedback.
  • Decisions relating to Services in 23rd GST Council meeting at Guwahaticlick here
  • Changes in GST/IGST rate and clarifications in respect of GST rate on certain goods as approved by GST Council on 10.11.2017click here
  • Press Release On Changes recommended in Composition Scheme.click here
  • CBEC Press Release On GST Rate Changes.click here
  • Press release with respect to policy issues recommended in 23rd GST Council Meeting.click here
  • " Circulars on deemed export supplies from DTA to EOU/EHTP/STP/BTP Units and due date for generation of FORM GSTR-2A and FORM GSTR-1A issued"Click Here
  • Details of Vendors providing E-seals to exportersclick here
  • VPNoBB at Field Formations with less than 5 users/AIOs to be upgraded to 2 Mbps
  • REVISION OF PENSION CASES OF PRE-2016 PENSIONERS
  • Notification issued extending the due date for filing FORM GSTR-2 and FORM GSTR-3 for the month of July, 2017
  • Application of 'own merit' rule for determining seniority of Superintendents in Zones under CBEC -reg.click here
  • Two days course on Prevention of Wildlife Trafficking for the officers of CBEC of the rank of AC/DC/JC/Addl Commissioners and Commissioners of CBEC on 27th and 28th November, 2017click here
  • Notification for waiving late fee on delayed filing of FORM GSTR-3B for Aug & Sep, 2017 issued
  • UPS upkeep & maintenance activityclick here
  • Circular clarifying movement of goods on approval basis has been issued.click here
  • Circular on Authorized officer for enrollment of Goods and Services Tax Practitioner has been issued.click here
  • List of ports and ICDs wherein e-seal readers are to be provided by the vendors-.click here
  • Incase of any LAN-WAN issues please call 18002662232/18001214560 or mail Saksham.Seva@icegate.gov.in
View all

AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS

(CENTRAL EXCISE, CUSTOMS & SERVICE TAX)

NEW DELHI

 

PRESENT

 

Hon'ble Mr.Justice Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri (Chairman)

Dr.B.A.Agrawal (Member)

 

Order No.AAR/05(ST)/2006

in

Application No.AAR/09/ST/2006

 

 

Applicant                                                                     M/s IJM (India) Infrastructure Limited

                                                                                    606-607, Bhandari House

                                                                                    91, Nehru Place

                                                                                    New Delhi-110019

                                                                                                           

 

Commissioner concerned                                          Commissioner of Service Tax

                                                                                    Delhi

 

Present for the applicant                                             Mr. Surender Gupta, C.A.

 

Present for the Commissioner                                   Mr. A.K. Roy, Joint CDR

concerned                                                                   CESTAT, New Delhi

                                                                                    Mr. Bipin Sapra

                                                                                    Additional Commissioner

                                                                                    Service Tax, Delhi

 

 

 

O R D E R

 

(Hon'ble Mr. Justice Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri)

 

                  

The applicant, in this application under Section 96C of the Finance Act, 1994 (for short "the Service Act"), claims to be a wholly owned subsidiary of M/s IJM Corporation, Berhad, a foreign company incorporated in Malaysia (for short the holding company).  It is stated that the holding company is having 97.31% of paid up equity of the applicant.  The holding company was awarded the contract of Civic Centre construction work at Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Minto Road, New Delhi  by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD).   The holding company has sub-contracted the work of Civic Centre construction to the applicant.  In the application against column 6, it is stated that the construction work is in progress.  On these facts, the applicant seeks advance ruling of the Authority on the following question :

"Whether the Civic Centre Construction Work awarded by the MCD is liable to service tax under section 65(105)(zzq) read with section 65(25b) of the Chapter V of Finance Act, 1994"

 

2.         On the scrutiny of the application, the Secretariat of the Authority pointed out the following defects in the application :

 

(i)                 the applicant is not a wholly owned subsidiary Indian company within the meaning of Section 96A(b) of the Service Act;  and

(ii)               the service in relation to which an advance ruling is sought has already commenced.

 

 On 18.10.2006 a show cause notice was therefore issued to the applicant to explain as to why the application should not be rejected on the aforementioned grounds.

No reply is filed to the notice by the applicant.  The case is put up for orders before us today.

 

3.         Mr. Surender Gupta, learned Counsel appears for the applicant, and argues that the expression "wholly owned subsidiary Indian company"  is not defined either in the Service Act or in the Indian Companies Act and that it is an impossibility because no company can be registered in India without at least one Indian shareholder and therefore one or more shares ought to be allotted to an Indian.  In this case the Indian share holders are having 2.69 shares  and the holding company is having 97.31% shares in the applicant.   He prays that in the circumstances the applicant  be treated as wholly owned subsidiary.  Mr. Bipin Sapra, Additional Commissioner, Service Tax, who appears for the Commissioner contends that though at least one Indian shareholder has to be there in the applicant,  the holding company should have not less than 99% shares in the applicant to be treated as a wholly owned subsidiary of the holding company.

 

4.         To appreciate the grounds of rejection, we refer to the definition of "advance ruling" and "applicant" in clauses (a) and (b) respectively of section 96A of the Service Tax Act, which read as under:

Section 96A.  Definitions - In this Chapter, unless the context otherwise requires -

 

(a)   "advance ruling" means the determination, by the Authority, of a question of law or fact specified in the application regarding the liability to pay service tax in relation to a service proposed to be provided, by the applicant;

 

 [(b)  "applicant" means -

 

(i)(a) a non-resident setting up a joint venture in India in collaboration with a non-resident or a resident; or

 

   (b) a resident setting up a joint venture in   India in collaboration with a non-resident; or

        

 (c)    a wholly owned subsidiary Indian company, of which the holding company is a foreign company,

 

who or which, as the case may be, proposes to undertake any business activity in India;

 

xx               xx            xx                 xx

 

In so far as the first ground is concerned, the applicant claims to fall under clause (b)(i)(c).   Under that sub-clause a wholly owned subsidiary Indian company of which the holding company is a foreign company may be an applicant in an application under section 96C of the Service Tax Act.  Clause (e) of section 96A says that "non-resident",  "Indian company" and "foreign company" have the meanings respectively assigned to them in clauses (30), (26) and 23A  of section 2 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.  But the definitions of those terms will not solve our problem as we are concerned with the expression "wholly owned subsidiary Indian company".

 

 It is true that the said expression is not defined either in the Service Tax Act or in the Companies Act.  The definition of the expressions, 'holding company' and 'subsidiary company' are contained in Section 4 of the Companies Act.   To be a wholly owned subsidiary of another company, in addition to satisfying the requirements of sub-sections(1) and (3) of section 4 of the Companies Act the holding company shall hold all the equity shares of the subsidiary company.   The requirements of a foreign holding company and subsidiary company are contained in sub-section(7) of Section 4 of the Companies Act which reads as under:-

Sub-section (7) of Section 4 of the Companies Act

A private company, being a subsidiary of a body corporate incorporated outside India, which, if incorporated in India, would be a public company within the meaning of this Act, shall be deemed for the purposes of this Act to be a subsidiary of a public company if the entire share capital in that private company is not held by that body corporate whether alone or together with one or more other bodies corporate incorporated outside India.

 

 

In view of the provision of sub-section (7) of Section 4 of  the Companies Act the entire share capital in the subsidiary should not be held by the holding foreign company, therefore pragmatically an Indian company can be treated as a wholly owned subsidiary Indian company when all its shares except one, are held  by the holding company.  Therefore, it follows that at least one share in the Indian owned wholly subsidiary company should be held by a person other than the holding company. Section 12 of the Companies Act requires that a public limited company (which must have a minimum paid up capital of five lakhs rupees) shall have at least seven share holders and for a private limited company (which must have a minimum share capital of one lakh rupees) there shall be at least two share holders.  So to comply with the requirement of a wholly owned subsidiary company, in its equity, in a unit of 100 shares or and multiple thereof, one share must be held by person other than the holding company and the balance of 99 shares have to be held by the holding company.   As admittedly in this case the foreign company which is the holding company, is not having 99% but only 97.31% shares in the applicant it is difficult to treat the applicant as a wholly owned subsidiary of the foreign holding company.

 

5.         Another formidable ground i.e. the second ground in the show cause notice is that the service in relation to which the advance ruling is sought has already been commenced, stares at the applicant.  We have noted above that the applicant has mentioned against Column 6 in the application that "construction work is in progress". 

 

We have already quoted Section 96A(a) of the Service Tax Act. A perusal of section 96A(a) shows that the liability to pay service tax can be determined by way of an advance ruling by the Authority in relation to a service proposed to be provided by the applicant.  As admittedly the construction work has already commenced on the date of the application and is in progress, it ceases to be a service proposed to be provided and therefore the service will not be within the meaning of the advance ruling.  We have taken the same view in the case of M/s McDonald's India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai - Order No. AAR/44/103/2003 dated 23.2.2004 and of Pfizer Limited Order No. AAR/02(ST)/2006 dated 29.8.2006.

 

6.         For the aforementioned reasons we reject the application as non -maintainable. 

 

 

                        (Justice S.S.M.Quadri)                          (B.A.Agrawal)

                                 Chairman                                       Member

 

 

Dated : 9th November, 2006