Skip to main content

Customised Software Designed For Specific User Is Also Taxable As 'Goods'

Cause Title : State Of Kerala vs Sri. V. C. Vinod, Kerala High Court, St. Rev. No.2 Of 2016

Date of Judgment/Order : 24/7/2023

Corum : Justice Mohammed Nias C. P. & Justice A. K. Jayasankaran Nambiar

Citied: 

  1. Tata Consultancy Services v. State of Andhra Pradesh – [(2005) 1 SCC 308]
  2. Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi v. Quick Heal Technologies Limited – [(2023) 5 SCC 469]

Background

The respondent/assessee was doing business in software. Computer software attracted tax @ 4% ad valorem was introduced into the KGST Act with effect from 1.4.2002. As the respondent/assessee had not taken any registration or paid tax in respect of the sale of software  to its clients under the KGST Act, penalty proposals were initiated by the Sales Tax Department for each of the assessment years,  against which the assessee argued that customised software was not goods and sales tax could not be demanded from it for the supply of customised software to its clients. When the first and second appeals preferred by the assessee before the Appellate Authority were dismissed, the assessee approached the High Court. The High Court remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for a de novo consideration on merits. This time the Tribunal observed that the judgment of the Supreme Court on this issue in Tata Consultancy (supra), was rendered in the context of “canned software”(or software available off the shelf) and has no application in cases of uncanned software which referred to software that was developed for a particular customer. The Tribunal therefore ordered in favour of the assessee. This revision petition was preferred by the State agains the said order.

Judgment

The High Court observed that the reasoning given by the Tribunal is that customised software developed and supplied to its clients by the assessee could not be brought to tax under the KGST Act since the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in Tata Consultancy [supra] dealt only with canned software or software that was available off the shelf and not customised software. However on a reading of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Tata Consultancy [supra], the High Court held  that the findings therein are clearly applicable not only to canned software but also to uncanned or customised software. 

The High Court therefore held that -

As per the findings of the Supreme Court there is no doubt that even a customised software will satisfy the definition of 'goods' for, it is evident that it has the attributes having regard to (a) its utility; (b) capable of being bought and sold; and (c) capable of being transmitted, transferred, delivered, stored and possessed. Once the said attributes are seen satisfied in the software in question, then whether the software is treated as customised or non-customised, it would nevertheless be categorised as 'goods' for the purposes of levy of tax.

The said view of the Supreme Court has since been followed in later decisions including a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Quick Heal Technologies Limited (supra). We are therefore of the view that merely because the software developed by the respondent/assessee in the instant case was customised for a particular user and was not sold to other users, the charges collected from the customer cannot escape the levy of sales tax under the KGST Act. This is more so because the mere fact that it was customised for a particular user did not lead to the software ceasing to be goods for the purposes of levy of sales tax.

Comments

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even