Ask Jurishour AI

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
tdb_templates
saswp_reviews
saswp-collections
saswp_rvs_location
tdc-review-email
web-story-font
web-story
googlesitekit_email
tds_locker
tds_email
saswp
mailpoet_page
mailpoet_email
tdcpt_tunes
tdc-review
pronamic_payment
pronamic_gateway
pronamic_pay_subscr
wpcode
HomeIndirect TaxesSupreme Court Upholds Quashes Rs. 125 Crore Service Tax Demand Against Airtel...

Supreme Court Upholds Quashes Rs. 125 Crore Service Tax Demand Against Airtel Over ‘Call Free Allowance’

Published on

🚀 Stay Connected With JurisHour

WhatsApp X Telegram

In a major relief to Bharti Airtel, the Supreme Court has upheld the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chandigarh, which had set aside a service tax demand of approximately ₹125 crore raised on the telecom company over the ‘Call Free Allowance’ (CFA) provided to its employees.

The Apex Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the Revenue, thereby affirming that the CFA extended to employees does not constitute consideration for any service rendered and hence, is not includible in the taxable value for service tax purposes.

The dispute revolved around the call usage facility—referred to as Call Free Allowance—granted by Airtel to its employees as part of their employment benefits. The tax authorities had argued that the free call usage constituted a service provided by the company to its employees, thereby attracting service tax under the then-prevailing service tax provisions.

However, the CESTAT had disagreed and ruled that CFA was in the nature of an internal employee benefit or discount, linked to employment and not to any consideration for services. Therefore, it could not be treated as a taxable supply of services.

A copy of the Supreme Court’s detailed judgment is awaited 

Read More: CESTAT Quashes Rs. 21.85 Crore Customs Duty Demand on Triumph Motorcycles India

Mariya Paliwala
Mariya Paliwalahttps://www.jurishour.in/
Mariya is the Senior Editor at Juris Hour. She has 7+ years of experience on covering tax litigation stories from the Supreme Court, High Courts and various tribunals including CESTAT, ITAT, NCLAT, NCLT, etc. Mariya graduated from MLSU Law College, Udaipur (Raj.) with B.A.LL.B. and also holds an LL.M. She started her career as a freelance tax reporter in the leading online legal news companies.

Latest articles

No Mini-Trial at Cognizance Stage: Directors’ Claim of Cooperation Must Be Examined During Trial

The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash criminal proceedings against two individuals facing...

Missing Seized Records Must Be Considered While Testing ITC Claim; Duplicate GST Demands Ordered Corrected: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has held that the tax department’s inability to furnish seized...

Capital Addition Can’t Be Taxed on Assumptions in Reassessment: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court has upheld the deletion of a ₹2.73 crore addition made...

GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected Without Addressing Taxpayer’s Grounds: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court has set aside an appellate order concerning cancellation of GST...

More like this

No Mini-Trial at Cognizance Stage: Directors’ Claim of Cooperation Must Be Examined During Trial

The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash criminal proceedings against two individuals facing...

Missing Seized Records Must Be Considered While Testing ITC Claim; Duplicate GST Demands Ordered Corrected: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has held that the tax department’s inability to furnish seized...

Capital Addition Can’t Be Taxed on Assumptions in Reassessment: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court has upheld the deletion of a ₹2.73 crore addition made...