The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside a service tax demand of over ₹65.19 lakh, holding that profits earned from investments in venture capital fund units cannot be treated as consideration for fund management services.
The bench of Ashok Jindal (Judicial Member) and K.Anpazhakan (Technical Member) has observed that royalty received for permitting the use of copyright falls outside the ambit of taxable intellectual property services under the Finance Act, 1994.
The appellant/assessee is a Non-Banking Financial Company (NBFC), was registered under the service tax regime for providing banking and financial services. Apart from lending and advisory services, the company also invested in securities and venture capital funds.
Buy Now: GST Judgements E-Compilation – June 2026
During departmental audit, the Revenue scrutinised the company’s books of accounts and identified three alleged irregularities: Profit of ₹4.97 crore received from investment in units of Adharshila Venture Capital Fund was treated as consideration for “Fund Management Services” taxable under Banking and Financial Services. Royalty of ₹36.33 lakh received from PRP Technologies Ltd. was classified as consideration for “Intellectual Property Service.” CENVAT credit of ₹71,713 was proposed to be denied on the ground of deficiencies in supporting documents.
A show cause notice demanded service tax of ₹65.19 lakh, along with interest and equivalent penalties under the Finance Act, 1994. The adjudicating authority confirmed substantial portions of the demand, prompting the company to challenge the order before CESTAT.
The principal controversy before the Tribunal was whether the profit earned from investment in venture capital fund units constituted consideration for taxable fund management services.
The appellant explained that it had invested in units of Adharshila Venture Capital Fund as an investor and received profits arising from appreciation of those investments. It separately rendered management advisory services to the fund and had already discharged service tax on the management fees received. According to the company, the investment profits and advisory fees were mistakenly grouped under a common accounting head titled “Investment Banking Revenue,” but they represented entirely different transactions.
Accepting the contention, the Tribunal observed that the company was merely a unit-holder receiving its legitimate share of profits from investments and was not managing the fund in relation to the disputed receipt.
The Bench emphasised that accounting nomenclature cannot determine taxability and that merely because investment income and service income were reflected under the same accounting head, the former could not automatically be treated as consideration for taxable services.
The Tribunal further held that the Revenue had failed to produce any evidence establishing that the investment profits represented consideration for services. Consequently, the demand relating to the alleged fund management services was set aside.
The second major issue concerned royalty received under agreements relating to the “PRP Concept” and “PRP-SRS” software.
The Tribunal noted that the appellant had acquired copyright in the software and later licensed its use to PRP Technologies Ltd. in return for royalty calculated at 10% of the licensee’s gross revenue.
Referring to Section 65(55a) of the Finance Act, 1994, the Bench observed that while trademarks, patents and similar intellectual property rights were covered under “Intellectual Property Right,” copyright was specifically excluded from the statutory definition.
After examining the agreements governing the transaction, the Tribunal concluded that the royalty was fundamentally paid for permitting the use of copyright. Since copyright stood expressly excluded from the taxable category, the royalty could not be subjected to service tax under Intellectual Property Service. Accordingly, the entire demand on this count was also quashed.
The Tribunal also overturned the denial of CENVAT credit amounting to ₹71,713.
It observed that the Revenue did not dispute that service tax had actually been paid by the service providers or that the services had been received and utilised for providing taxable output services.
The credit had been denied only because of technical discrepancies such as invoices being issued in the names of key managerial personnel or alleged deficiencies in documentation.
The Bench held that substantive CENVAT credit cannot be denied merely because of procedural irregularities when the receipt of services, payment of tax and utilisation for taxable output services remain undisputed.
Apart from deciding the dispute on merits, the Tribunal found that the extended period of limitation had been wrongly invoked.
It noted that the disputed investment transactions had been fully reflected in the appellant’s books of accounts and audited financial statements for the financial year 2007-08. The show cause notice, however, was issued only on 17 October 2012.
Since the Revenue relied entirely upon records already available in the company’s audited accounts, there was no suppression of facts warranting invocation of the extended limitation period. The Tribunal therefore held that the demand was barred by limitation as well.
Having held that the service tax demand itself was unsustainable, the Tribunal ruled that the penalties imposed under Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 could not survive.
Accordingly, the entire impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief to the appellant.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
