News Flash
  • Notifications specifying the tax collection at source (TCS) rates to be collected by e-commerce operators for inter-State and intra-State supplies issued.
  • Nomination For One-Day Training on Right To Information Act, 2005 For Group 'A' Officers Of CBIC on 08th October, 2018 at NACIN, FaridabadClick here
  • Call for nomination for Advance Licensing and Enforcement Exchange Training Program to be conducted at Foreign Services Institute, New Delhi from 29 October-02 November, 2018 Click here
  • Member Admin DO regarding Swachhata Hi Sewa (SHS) 2018 from 15.09.2018 to 02.10.2018Click here   |  Enclosures
  • Examination for confirmation of enrollment of GST practitionersEnglish   |   Hindi
  • Extension of time limit for submitting the declaration in FORM GST TRAN-1 under rule 117(1A) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 in certain casesClick here
  • Guidelines for Deductions and Deposits of TDS by the DDO under GSTClick here
  • Filing single application in High Courts and Cestat in order to complete withdrawal of identified cases by 30.09.18Click here
  • Circular No.64/38/2018-GST, dated 14.09.2018 modifying Circular Nos. 41 and 49 of 2018 issuedClick here
  • Swachhta Hi Sewa(SHS)2018" from 15.09.2018 to 2.10.2018-reg.Click here
  • Clarification regarding processing of refund claims filed by UIN entitlesClick here
  • CGST Rules, 2017 as amended upto 13.09.2018 have been uploaded
  • Notifications issued to bring provisions related to TDS and TCS into force w.e.f 01st October, 2018; and to amend CGST Rules, 2017
  • Clarification regarding reporting of DR quota vacancies in CBIC for the year 2018.Click here
  • CGST Rules, 2017 as amended upto 10.09.2018 have been uploaded.
  • Notifications issued for extending the due dates for filing of FORM GSTR - 1 for all taxpayers and FORM GSTR-3B for specified classes of taxpayers; and for making amendments to the CGST Rules, 2018.Click here
  • Swachhta Uday Booklet is available now.Click here
  • The GST Templates for Part-III (Anti-evasion) and Part-V (Adjudication, Call Book, Refunds, Provisional Assessments, Miscellaneous) of MPRs have been hosted on the DDM website. GST Commissionerates are required to upload data in the said MPRs from July, 2017 onwards at the earliest.
  • Notifications issued for extending the due dates for filing of FORM GST ITC-04 andFORM GST ITC-01 for specified classes of taxpayers; waiving of late fees for specified classes of taxpayers; and for making amendments to the CGST Rules, 2018
  • Updated version of GST Concept and Status and PPT on GST - An Update as on 01/09/2018 have been uploaded
  • Supply and Installation of One Ultra Short Throw Projector in NACIN, CochinClick here
  • e-Tender notice for Vehicle Tender for NACIN, ChennaiClick here
  • Chairman newsletter dated 14.09.2018
  • Details of Prospective Trainings by NACIN and its ZTIs & RTIs in September, 2018 .Click here
  • Furnishing of compliance report in respect of AGT 2018 in the grade DC/AC.Click here
  • OM dated 28.08.2018 regarding AISL of Administrative Officers (Cx & Dte.) for the period 01.01.2009 to 30.06.2014Click here
  • The Templates (MPRs) for Withdrawal of Departmental Appeals (DJC-GST-A, DJC-GST-B, DJC-GST-C, DJC-GST-X and DJC-GST-M) has been hosted on DDM website. Central Excise & GST Commissionerates as well as Customs Commissionerates are required to upload the Withdrawal of Departmental Appeals data.
  • Notifications issued to extend the due dates for filing of FORM GSTR-3B and FORM GSTR-1 for registered persons in Kerala and persons having principal place of business in Kodagu or Mahe
  • Inviting Nominations for 1 day Training Workshop on " Welfare measures and incentives provided for SC/ST Officers" on 31st August 2018 at Centre of Excellence, New Delhi Click here
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